Bf 109 video

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
(which i notice has been removed from your sig, probably because you ignore so many that it breached the 5 lines rule)

Originally posted by Viking
Since you obviously didn't notice it, I'm no longer using the ignore list ...  

.....right....ok.....yes..... lol


no offence intended viking, and im glad you have matured past thinking anyone cares if they make your ignore list.


humble is not only my squadmate, but my friend.

if you disagree with him thats not my business, if he is drastically wrong with his info and you must correct him thats nothing to do with me.


to call him your 'stalker' is not only arrogant but blatantly false.





i do not wish this to become an issue between anyone and me, i am simply asking that you do not bring your childish flames into a worthwhile discussion with my friend.

cool?

[Viking]

You should be more careful expressing disrespectful opinions like that; you never know who you might be insulting.

Originally posted by Skuzzy
You guys have no idea how much I envy you being able to use the ignore list.

[Viking]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
cool?

Always

[humble]

Excuse me but I didnt "troll" this thread at all. I simply indicated that the 109 is a very difficult plane to fly. So difficult that one of the most accomplished and widely recognized "warbird" pilots of our era was killed attempting to land the plane on a clear, calm day. you misguidedly commented on other circumstances {and your comments were totally incorrect}. Someone else brought up the comment that roughly 1/3 of the 109's built were lost due to accident. You immediately malighned the source without providing any data to support your position. you then bring up other threads as some sort of attack on me.

You'll find I support every statement i make with some measure of research and 3rd party documentation. Does that mean I'm right, of course not. It means that I'm making a good faith effort to present an even handed eduacted opinion based on merit...nothing more nothing less. Looking very briefly at the 109 site in question. It uses comments made in 1937 about a prewar model of the 109 prominently but in no way even presents Gunther Rall's opposing point of view on the plane. so its full of quotes from marginal finnish aces but ignores the 3rd leading ace in luftwaffe service. The site itself is dedicated to providing and supporting a specific viewpoint....not a fair and unbiased analysis of the plane itself.

If we look objectively at the 109 it "topped" out with the 109F4...which is a clearly superior plane to the equivelent spitfire V as an all around combat plane. As the spit V and 109 were "up engined" the spitIX is (IMO) clearly superior to the 109G2 and equal to or better then the 109G6. The spitXIV is clearly dominant to any 109 with the possible exception of the K-4 {in some aspects}.

The 190 was clearly superior to the 109 as early as 1941. Realistically the production of the 109 should have stopped with the 109F4 and switched to the 190 series. Had the germans initiated trials like the americans & british did then a totally new series of planes would have appeared in 1943 in approximate parallel to the F4U, Tempest, P51 etc...if we look at each nations front line fighter as of July 1, 1944 {arbitrary date} only the germans were flying an initially prewar design as their primary fighter. The closest arguement would be the spitfire series.

My simple point is that the 109 was actually an early to midwar fighter that should have been retired from service by 1943 in favor of more advanced designs.

I have absolutley no "ax to grind" with you or anyone else. I also will gladly acknowledge an opposing point of view....this is after all a "debate" of some kind. All I ask is that my comments are judged (positively or negatively) on merit. When you made the comment on Hanna I went back and dug up the obit....someone else posted excerpts from the accident report. Everyone in this type of debate is occasionally in error....and often we get caught in a wide grey area where opposing viewpoints can be argued with merit and zeal.

The fundemental core of my "109 arguement" is that for some unexpicable reason the most technologically advanced nation in WW2 chose to continuelly fight a losing battle to upgrade a prewar design instead of moving on to a new and improved platform. The earlier "P-39 vs 109" threads are really the start of that understanding. I was amazed {once I actually researched it} just how formidable the P-39 was during 1942-44 in russian hands. To me this documents just how ineffective the 109 became as it does the prowness and ingenuity of the russians. As a counterpart I cant imagine "us" {the US} flying upengined F4F's over Iwo Jima or patrolling the skys over normandy in P-40N's in June 1944. So I am at a loss in rationalizing the germans reliance on the 109 at such a late date.

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
Excuse me but I didnt "troll" this thread at all. I simply indicated that the 109 is a very difficult plane to fly.

Something no 109 pilot I've seen, listened to or read about agrees with you. Including Oscar Boesch who disagrees with you in the video starting this very thread and I paraphrase "It was a good aircraft to fly … an easy aircraft to fly".

Pardon me, but I will take the word of an actual 109 pilot over yours.

[B@tfinkV]

S! viking im glad you took my post without a personal approach.





one thing that puzzles me in our virtual world here...



if the 109 is infact very easy to fly why is the G14 and K4 so high up the ENY list? (G14 is ENY - 22 right now)


surely if the G14 was around the same time as the P51, and assuming both planes hold no major advantage over each other, they should be equal or near equal in ENY value.



what is HTC's reason for giving the G14 such a high eny and the P51 such a low one?


i realise this is a game and not real life, i just dont see where anyone can be so adament that the 109 is so easy to fly when in the pretty realistic game we play it is infact very difficult to fly.


i wonder how many of the german and finnish 109 aces ever got the chance to fly a spitfire for a comparison with a plane that truly was 'very easy to fly'

[humble]

Originally posted by Viking
Including Oscar Boesch who disagrees with you in the video starting this very thread and I paraphrase "It was a good aircraft to fly … an easy aircraft to fly".

Pardon me, but I will take the word of an actual 109 pilot over yours.

"Flying" and landing are to different things. If we look at the statistical probabilities the vast majority of aviation accidents are during takeoff and landing. Obviously mechanical failure plays a part...but so does the complexity of the plane with regard to both its inate flight characteristics and landing configuration. The 109 is a difficult plane to both take off and land. It will "knuckle over" if the pilot lets the nose up to soon. Even with full rudder there is a window where the torque will "flip" the plane...on landing the plane has a pretty narrow sweetspot. It has a steep decent rate and high AOA and once at 165 a strong tendancy to drop the left wing. Once commited to the approach any application of power greatly complicates things. Very simply stated its a very unforgiving plane that will quickly get away from even an experienced pilot.  

Something no 109 pilot I've seen, listened to or read about agrees with you.

I think this speaks more toward your lack of research then anything else since its a widely documented reality.

[humble]

in question. He clearly states the plane was a pleasure to fly "like a racehorse"...AFTER  you got it off the ground. Later when discussing the takeoff and landing he's embellishing on the diffculty and lack of control (his words) during both and hand gesturing (emphisising that you needed to be a good pilot and know what was going on). I came away with the clear feeling that he felt this was a challenging plane to fly, difficult to both land and takeoff but with exceptional performance at speed....all very simliar to Mark Hanna's comments. From perspective you appear to hear what you feel supports your position and not whats actually being communicated.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by humble
I simply indicated that the 109 is a very difficult plane to fly. So difficult that one of the most accomplished and widely recognized "warbird" pilots of our era was killed attempting to land the plane on a clear, calm day.

To be fair, no matter the plane he would have crashed, because he had exceeded the plane's envelope. He was turning too hard into runway while too slow with no altititude to work with.

109 was a small airframe coupled with very strong engine. By all what is known today, it flew like a dream, stall recovery was easy, the only vice it had was handling on the ground which wasn't that much worse than that of any other high powered plane with narrow landing gear.

Originally posted by humble
The 190 was clearly superior to the 109 as early as 1941. Realistically the production of the 109 should have stopped with the 109F4 and switched to the 190 series. Had the germans initiated trials like the americans & british did then a totally new series of planes would have appeared in 1943 in approximate parallel to the F4U, Tempest, P51 etc...if we look at each nations front line fighter as of July 1, 1944 {arbitrary date} only the germans were flying an initially prewar design as their primary fighter. The closest arguement would be the spitfire series.

The spitfire frame was a bit larger and was easier to deal with increased power, protection, etc. Even so, late war versions had not much in common with early war spitfires. Almost completely different plane.
On the other hand, 109 basically remained unchanged for a simple reason. Germans couldn't afford to disrupt the production. Have the frame been modified and slightly enlarged it could have been different story.

They had arguably the best tank design of the WWII, the Panther, but they could never afford to cease the production of Panzer IV and completely switch to Panther for the same reason they continued with the production of 109.

[Panzzer]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
i wonder how many of the german and finnish 109 aces ever got the chance to fly a spitfire for a comparison with a plane that truly was 'very easy to fly'

Some of the Finnish pilots flew Brewsters, Curtiss Hawk 75's and Morane-Saulnier 406's before transferring to 109. I think Brewster at least would qualify as an 'easy to fly plane'. Taking off or landing in a 109 didn't seem too difficult for most of those pilots. I'm a bit busy now, heading to the Snapshot which starts in 7 minutes, but here's one quote...

Me 109 G-2:
"It felt dangerous when we were flying the introductory flights in the Messerschmitt. It was winter and the runway in Suulajärvi was just a narrow strip ploughed in the snow. Then we set about it. It was an insecure feeling, can I stay on the strip. There was no interim types between Brewster and 109 G-2.
You just had to remember to keep her in contact with the ground long enough, you did not try to use too little speed. Then you could control her."
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories.

[B@tfinkV]

very good answer to my pondering question panzzer, thank you for the education sir. seems to support the idea that it [109] was nothing like an 'easy plane to fly'.


and good hunting in the air for you in the coming hours!


bat

[Bronk]

Originally posted by 2bighorn


109 was a small airframe coupled with very strong engine. By all what is known today, it flew like a dream, stall recovery was easy, the only vice it had was handling on the ground which wasn't that much worse than that of any other high powered plane with narrow landing gear.

109 = 10lbs technology in a 5lb bag.


Bronk

[Krusty]

Humble,

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g2&p2=spit9

G-2 was faster, climbed better than or equal to the spit9 up to 20k, turns almost as tightly as it did, and it's no secret that the LW pilots were better trained and skilled at this point of the war (1942). [edit: those that survived the BOB]

In fact, the G-2 is better in every way over the F-4, including armament options, speed, climb, with a nearly identical turn radius (only slightly larger). The only reason the G-6 is such a flop (and this is widely acknowledged) is because they added too much weight, in order to combat those annoying, nearly-indestructible, bombers. The G-6 wasn't meant to be pure fighter anymore. It was transitioning from pure fighter to bomber interceptor. The later models with higher boost and additives perform better

Check out:

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=spit8&p2=spit16&p3=109g6&p4=109g14

The speed and climb rates are all very competitive with each other, except the early 1943 model G-6 which is too heavy and lacks a decent boost, at WEP its climb rate falls behind. Note that in climb, acceleration, speed, they are all VERY similar. In fact they're almost the same. I'd call that competitive. The only advantage (and we already know this) is the turn radius of the spitfires. Even so, the other 109s are not that far behind. They're close enough that they can still put a world of hurt on any of the spitfires.

Take that into consideration when you say the best 109 was the F-4, and all others after it were crap. Because you're wrong. The Emils were just barely holding their own against the Spitfires. The 109F gave them a marked advantage. It's only natural they'd have a soft spot in their hearts for it. Regardless, the only thing the 109F has over the others is a small decrease in turn radius. If that were the only important thing in a fighter, they'd never have left the Emils, because they turned even tighter.

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
"Flying" and landing are to different things

I agree, perhaps you should have said "landing" then instead of…

Originally posted by humble
I simply indicated that the 109 is a very difficult plane to fly.

It seems it was "flying" you were talking about.

Originally posted by humble
If we look at the statistical probabilities the vast majority of aviation accidents are during takeoff and landing.

If you take the fact that an air show pilot fudged up (I was admittedly wrong about that, my apologies) and crashed as proof that the 109 was dangerous, do you also consider other WWII fighters that have crashed during air shows as dangerous? Surely not. Is there a WWII fighter type that hasn't crashed on a "clear, calm day" even in the hands of an experienced pilot? Don't think so. I can think of several warbirds that have crashed on a "clear, calm day", including a P-38. Do you consider the P-38 dangerous? Surely not.

Originally posted by humble
I think this speaks more toward your lack of research then anything else since its a widely documented reality.

Documented by whom? Surely not by anyone who's actually flown the plane.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
if the 109 is infact very easy to fly why is the G14 and K4 so high up the ENY list? (G14 is ENY - 22 right now)

I would guess, usage numbers, gun power, and low alt performance, but you'd really have to ask HTC about that.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
surely if the G14 was around the same time as the P51, and assuming both planes hold no major advantage over each other, they should be equal or near equal in ENY value.

That's if you assume the game environment is anywhere near the same as it was in real life.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
what is HTC's reason for giving the G14 such a high eny and the P51 such a low one?

IMHO the P-51D has a far too low ENY compared to its performance. It must be the usage numbers (it's a popular plane for nationalistic reasons). In a 1-on-1 between a 109K and a P-51D in this game the 109 is clearly equal or superior at all altitudes up to 30K (and beyond). The 109G-14 is inferior to the P-51D in speed, but superior in all other regimes of flight. In a 1-on-1 I would still bet on the G-14 against the D-Pony, but the Pony would be able to disengage almost at will.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
i realise this is a game and not real life, i just dont see where anyone can be so adament that the 109 is so easy to fly when in the pretty realistic game we play it is infact very difficult to fly.

The 109 is very easy to fly in AH. Perhaps too easy even. The P-51 however is much more difficult to push to the edge of the envelope. At least in my experience.

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
i wonder how many of the german and finnish 109 aces ever got the chance to fly a spitfire for a comparison with a plane that truly was 'very easy to fly'

I know Franz Stigler did. He liked the Spitfire too.

A few quotes from people that actually flew the 109:


"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.


On 20/01/01, Markus and Ryan Muntener met Franz Stigler and had the chance to ask a variety of questions, many of which addressed hotly-debated topics regarding the 109, and the general misconceptions that people have.

Excerpts:

Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would lose them easily?

He has never heard of a 109 losing its' wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12G's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9G's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.

Did you fly the 109 with the wing-mounted guns?

Yes he had, but almost everyone he new got the guns removed (including himself). The 109 handled much worse at low speeds with the guns on the wings, but climb was similar. It only really added some weight to the aircraft.

What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?

I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.

EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph


Did pilots like the slats on the wings or the 109?

Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in a dogfight, along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.

Were the guns on the bombers dangerous or worrisome to pilots?

Yes and no (as he points to his head where you can see an indent). If you have 28 bombers with 10 guns each, all pointing and shooting at you they could be very dangerous. He has an indent in the upper part of his forehead from a .5 cal bullet that had smashed through the thick armoured glass in his 109 cockpit. The bullet had lost enough speed by this time that it had only "stuck" into his head. He said he almost never returned home from a bomber attack without bullet holes somewhere on his aircraft.


The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft.




This has all been discussed before of course, and the following link will take you to a thread that is one of the best. It even features Humble in his … usual role.

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142664

[humble]

OK, lests look at some quotes....1st the ones you mention.

Gunther Rall was discussing the Me-109E and his transition from a Heinkel bi-plane.

The quote from Al Williams was from 1937...so you led with two quotes that were actually from before the beginning of WW2.

Now lets look at some others....

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 had good performance values for its time, the weapons (1 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm) were accurate and effective. The option for 3x20mm cannons was well suited against IL-2s. I didn't regard the swerving during take-offs as anything special. In my opinion, the accidents were caused by poor training.
- Martti Uottinen, Finnish war bomber pilot, post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Hmmm enough accidents he mentions them....

"Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. "

Hmmmm more landing accidents....

Me 109 had good and accurate weapons, but those were the only good points of it. To me, it's unacceptable that somebody had built a fighter plane that couldn't be dived without limits. Me109 had a dive limit of 880km/h - you weren't to exceed it or the plane would break up. Just this happened to Sgt Mäittälä. I (and Pokela) was forced to exceed this limit twice, I can't describe how it felt just to sit in the cockpit waiting, if the plane would break up. I have never gotten rid of that feeling, of being trapped."
-Heimo Lampi, Finnish fighter ace. 13 1/2 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories;
'In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the 109 straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway. On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the 109 swung so much to the left that I feared it would crashinto some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the 109 dropped on its left wing. This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... In all, I was shot down 15 times.... On one occasion I saw the right wing of my 109 flying right alongside me ! During an attack on a bomber formation, I was hit by an enemy fighter, right in one of the main spar attachment lugs. Luckily, I was over 2,000 metres high, but even then I only succeeded in getting out of the crazily-spinning machine close to the ground. I crashed against the tailplane, and for the next two weeks I could only walk bent in two....'


Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939;
'The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.'

"It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 601 engine. Excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft. And it had a very good weapon set. We had a 20 millimeter gun through the propellor, and two 15 millimeters (actually 2 x 7,92 mms) on top of the engine. It was enough."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

"When I was injured, I became the commander of the German Fighter Leader School for about four months or so. At that time we had formed a squadron with captured enemy aircraft, and we flew them--the P-38, P-47, P-51, as well as some Spitfires. My left hand was still in bandages, but I was flying all of these aircraft, as I was very eager to learn about and evaluate them. I had a very good impression of the P-51 Mustang, where the big difference was the engine. When we received these aircraft we flew about 300 hours in them. You see, we did not know anything about how they flew, their characteristics or anything before that. In the P-51 there was no oil leak, and that was just fantastic. This was one of the things that impressed me, but I was also very interested in the electrical starting switches, which we did not have. This made it very difficult in starting our engines in the Russian winter. We had the inertia starter. The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow. The P-51 (cockpit) was for me a great room, just fantastic. The P-38 with two engines was great, but I think the best airplane was the P-51. Certainly the Spitfire was excellent, but it didn't have the endurance of the P-51. I think this was the decisive factor. They flew for seven hours, and we flew for one hour and 20 minutes."

Gunther Rall