Bf 109F info

[PanzerIV]

Nice German site on Bf109F, it is translated though, thought you all might enjoy it.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1

[Spikes]

Great info!

[humble]

Certainly an interesting read...

As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados. The 109F4 is undoubtably the best 109 ever built and one of the true "watermark" fighters...it's "raw numbers" {regardless of what they truely are} are insignificant when viewed in light of the historical accomplishments.

At the time of its introduction it was argueably the premeir fighter in the world. Unfortunately none of the planes real shortcomings were ever addressed in subsequent models.

The focus here is entirely on downplaying trivial discrepancies when the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected....

[Charge]

"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados."

As always I'm amazed of this kind of BS. The 109 "affectionados" do not really differ from any other form of warbird fanboys. It's in your mind only, Snappy.

"the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected"

Range? More fuel displacement? Where? In the wings? In the fuselage?

Visibility? The windshield was very small giving very little drag and I don't recall it to be a real issue to anybody but allied testpilots. Some German "aces" actually managed to get a few kills peeking through it.

Pilot ergonomics? How much less space is there than in Spitfire? What do you need the space for in a fighter? Plus the leg position is much better considering the G tolerance. Unfortunately not modelled in AH.

Control surface authority? What is wrong with it? Elevator authority maybe -because it can't be aileron authority because it was comparable to some very famous allied rides. The elevator authority issue is modeled in AH but again e.g. Spitfire's over sensitivity problem is not. The rudder had probably more authority than any other aircraft of that era had. But I guess you were referring to RL and not in the game?

It was a cheap and easily manufactured small airplane used by many countries even after the war and its shortcomings caused by its physical size were nothing special if compared to other contemporary warbirds. And it has a rather good service record to back that up.

Yes, certainly interesting read.

-C+

[gripen]

Well, never underestimate the power of the selective quoting.

PS: And that applies to everyone including me...

[humble]

Not true at all charge...

I'm a big fan of the 109D thru F. Each was tremendously ahead of its time. however the simple fact is that the plane was pushed beyond the point of diminishing returns.

1) Range is what it is...the 109 suffered tremendously. The lack of range was one of the primary reason the germans lost the BoB. This same lack of range greatly hampered bomber intercepts over germany, the 109's didnt have fuel to stya on station ong enough.

2) Visability was horrible, yes the galland hood was a big improvement but that came very late in the war. 109 had the worst visability of any "mainstay" fighter...

3) The 109 was very taxing to fly compared to many planes. One of the top expertain commnaded the "testbed" squad that handled captured allied craft. He commented it was easier to fly the mustang for 7 hours then the 109 for 1 hour.

4) Actually the rudder in the 109 was "overstressed" (searching for a word here) by the increasing power in the engine. The 109 was a tough bird to fly. The tremendous torque literally overpowered the control surface authority at low speeds which greatly complicated both emergency takeoff and landing procedures (yes the F4U and others had similiar issues)....but none were this bad. This problem got worse as more engine was stuffed into the plane.

Lets look at historical realities....

The 109F2/4 was in service during the circuses and rubarbs of 1942. The british had no real problems or concerns with the 109...it was considered an 'equal" and challenging adversary. when the 190 arrived it totally changed the balance of power forcing the british to create the spitIX while the british stopped almost all offensive sorties until it could be put in service. The 190 was markedly superior to the 109F....

The 109 was so badly overmatched on both the western and eastern fronts that Feb 1943 the lufftwaffe recommended officially that it be taken out of service and replaced by german manufactured G.55's or C 205's. The luftwaffe concluded that both were clearly superior to the 109G6.

The 109 was probably the best early war fighter in the game. It simply was overmatched by 1943. Thats simple historical fact...

[hogenbor]

Isn't it a bit sad that after 60 years we're still chest thumping about what plane is best? *sigh*

The 109 had a very long and distinghuised career, is built in large numbers and saw service into the 1960's. It saw service from the Luftwaffe, and very ironically, to the Israeli air force (Czech Avia variants) where they had to fight (even more ironic), Egyptian Spitfires. A VERY interesting bird and I like to read about it.

Anyway, it's nice to read something like this on an Axis bird. There is Allied info all over the net, but Axis stuff is few and far between.

Conveniently, I can read German so it's even better to look at the scans themselves. Thanks for posting.

[Laciner]

"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 aficionados"

It's not so much the 109, it's the German war effort in general. The Germans have always had a certain kind of perversely glamorous attraction for some people. Back in the past, punks and bikers used to dress up with swastikas, iron crosses, and "stahlhelms" because it was transgressive to do so. Nowadays the same people are older, and they spend their time on alternative history sites, arguing about how Germany might have won the war. Or they trade videos of overweight modern-day men dressed as German soldiers, firing MG42s from the hip. Etc. It's geeky, and it's a little bit transgressive, and so it has a powerful appeal for people who don't get on with mainstream society; science fiction and fantasy fans, if you know what I mean. The kind of people who enjoy Warhammer 40,000.

Typically the re-enactor, enthusiast, amateur scholar etc justifies this by saying that he - and it is always a he - is merely honouring the brave fighting men, rather than supporting a particular political ideology. It ends up with the same people getting upset about Dresden and Rudolph Hess, and then calling their daughter Helga, and after that there's a short step towards the line of no return.

Besides, German kit typically looked meaner than Allied equipment. The 109 looks nastier than a Spitfire. It has a little square welding mask porthole where the man looks out. German bombers looked like evil insects. A Tiger tank looks dangerous, whereas a Sherman looks like a child's toy. German equipment was typically more angular than Allied equipment. The logos and iconography were starker. The words sound threatening; "minengeschoss" and "rüstsätze" and "obersturmbannführer" have a certain ring to them. The German officers wore long leather trenchcoats and big boots, who could fail to be seduced by that?

-
"You were bred and led yourself"

[Meyer]

Originally posted by humble


Lets look at historical realities....

The 109F2/4 was in service during the circuses and rubarbs of 1942. The british had no real problems or concerns with the 109...it was considered an 'equal" and challenging adversary. when the 190 arrived it totally changed the balance of power forcing the british to create the spitIX while the british stopped almost all offensive sorties until it could be put in service. The 190 was markedly superior to the 109F....

Looking at the RAF casualties at that time, I would think that the british had indeed a lot of problems with the 109...

The 109 was probably the best early war fighter in the game. It simply was overmatched by 1943. Thats simple historical fact...

Sure, if you say so

[Charge]

"however the simple fact is that the plane was pushed beyond the point of diminishing returns."

I have to agree with that to some extent and indeed there were planes that had more potential for upgrades. The design approach was probably not the best considering the direction the airwar in WW2 was going to but then again Germany didn't realize the demands such a prolonged war would put on airframe development -but I don't think any of the planes that took part in competition the 109 won could have done better. It was a good plane for short ranged interception role which took place -43 onwards but the pilot material could not handle such a demanding plane as well as they should have and the worsening situation and overwhelming numbers in the end emphasized this.

"It simply was overmatched by 1943"

According to losses it may seem so but that was not entirely the fault of the plane but worsening strategic situation -considering that the 109 did pretty well, IMO.

I agree that the F was a crest of its development when the size, weight and power were optimal and from that it started losing its advantages as the weight increased.

-C+

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by PanzerIV
Nice German site on Bf109F, it is translated though, thought you all might enjoy it.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1

How does it fly in IL2?  hehe



ack-ack

[humble]

If you browse any of the military history think tanks and look at the historical records the common concensus is that the luwtwaffe "died" in 1943. Obviously alot of factors came into play here...but not the one's normally viewed by the mainstream. The US daylight bombing was just starting and the war in the east hadnt yet turned into a bloodbath for the germans.

Yet things had gotten so bad that the luftwaffe itself petitioned for all 109 production to cease in favor of the 190 and G.55 (and/or C 205). The simple reality is that the 109 had gone from a superior plane to a somewhat inferior one. The german losses at the kuban bridgehead were never really replaced and the loss of so many seasoned pilots never overcome.

This loss largely coincides with the introduction of the G series of 109 (and beyond). The luftwaffe recognized the planes "inferiority"{and again this is a lose term...it was still a formidable foe in the hands of an experienced pilot}. The decision to keep the 109 in production was a combination of politics and engineering. The G.55 took longer to build and required a more skilled workforce which translated to lower production at higher cost per plane.

If we view 1943 as the most pivotable year when either side still had the ability to win and then look at procurement we get interesting results.

The germans were the only side who relied entitrely on planes evolved in the 1930's (109 & 190)...

The Americans, British, Italians, Russians and Japanese all had 2nd and even 3rd generation designs either in service or just entering production.

Fundementally the germans we're relying on the same plane that fought in the spanish civil war in 1943....

[Angus]

Originally posted by Charge
"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados."

As always I'm amazed of this kind of BS. The 109 "affectionados" do not really differ from any other form of warbird fanboys. It's in your mind only, Snappy.

"the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected"

Range? More fuel displacement? Where? In the wings? In the fuselage?

Visibility? The windshield was very small giving very little drag and I don't recall it to be a real issue to anybody but allied testpilots. Some German "aces" actually managed to get a few kills peeking through it.

Pilot ergonomics? How much less space is there than in Spitfire? What do you need the space for in a fighter? Plus the leg position is much better considering the G tolerance. Unfortunately not modelled in AH.

Control surface authority? What is wrong with it? Elevator authority maybe -because it can't be aileron authority because it was comparable to some very famous allied rides. The elevator authority issue is modeled in AH but again e.g. Spitfire's over sensitivity problem is not. The rudder had probably more authority than any other aircraft of that era had. But I guess you were referring to RL and not in the game?

It was a cheap and easily manufactured small airplane used by many countries even after the war and its shortcomings caused by its physical size were nothing special if compared to other contemporary warbirds. And it has a rather good service record to back that up.

Yes, certainly interesting read.

-C+

Hehe, at last, a 109 thread, that immediately involves the dreaded Spitfire
Okay, visibility etc. It was corrected by getting bigger. Kind of like the Allies.
Ergonomics, - well controls got heavier. Cockpit stayed the same, - probably the tightest fit of a WW2 mainstream fighter. Seat position, - Racecar, - ahead of it's time. Only remedy in the same direction that I know of is the RAf's stepped pedals as well as their testings of pressure suits.
Control surface authority? At high speeds, where the going gets tough, completely no match for a Spitty in the elevator department (NB that the over-sensitivity was basically over-authority as well, and cured in the Spit V, by being made acceptably "heavier"), in the Roll plane at high speed better than what allied mainstream fighter by a noticable margin?
In the rudder plane? Always needing a boot, however nicely effective.

As for manufacture and maintenance, - THE KING!
And the Killing record? THE EMPEROR!

And the 109F from a 109 Pilots point of view? The only one I asked said "Highly maneuverable". "The best of them all, after the F, they became to heavy"

[Charge]

Thats one way to look at it.

The other way is that it didn't need huge alterations in design to remain competitive after F model, even though it meant more speed for the cost of other handling qualities. The Luftwaffe and specifically the pilots did not actually "recognize its inferiority" but realized that the G model was losing some of the desired qualities the design had in F model i.e. turn performance.

The first time 109 failed to live up to expectations was during the BoB because that role was not what is was designed for and I guess other countries were quickly to learn from that mistake. I still fail to understand why they could not simply put a drop tank in E3 and E4 models...

After reading Galland's last book I realized that the atmosphere during the war did not really support sensible fighter development and when the need was realized it was all too little and too late so the 109 had to do, and it did. The 262 for example was an interesting and remarkable design but considering the situation Germany was in, the fighter development would have demanded different allocation of resources and effort -but then again it would only have delayed the inevitable.

-C+

[Charon]

Looking at the RAF casualties at that time, I would think that the british had indeed a lot of problems with the 109...

The British had a lot of trouble with tactics at the time.

The Rhubarbs were generally offensive busy work.  Like on the Eastern front, the Luftwaffe could generally hit and run when favorable or not engage. The raids were of minimal concern to the Germans from a damage perspective and the British formations, even though they were attacking, were more on the defensive than offensive in practical terms. They could be engaged on operational terms that did not stress the limitations of the 109 tactical fighter platform. This worked  even better for a 190.

That was much less of an option in the defense of the Reich against the USAAF bombing campaign.

This is covered in good detail in "JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell.

As a 1 on 1 fighter the 109 generally managed to match up well throughout the war as did the Spitfire, which had similar limitations. However, after 1939 the limitations of single role aircraft became more pronounced That includes the 109s necessary counterpart the Stuka.

You couldn't add the firepower to a 109 to be a good bomber killer without suffering performance penalties due to airframe limitations. The same for extra fuel, and ground attack ordnance to enhance multi role capabilities. Aircraft like the Zero suffered even more because of power limitations.

FW190, Typhoon/Tempest, P38/47/51 etc. were far more versatile platforms that matcjed the fighter performance but went far beyond that. Mult-role also translated into benefits in resource allocation and production optimization.

Charon