Bf109E-4 Questions....

[Replicant]

Hi all

Can someone tell me just how good the 109E-4 was and how it compared to all the other variants of 109s, in particular the 109F-4.  Was it used more as a turnfighter or??

Thanks for your help...

Regards

'Nexx'

[Westy]

 I think it was like the Mustang of it's time. Not in range mind you but it was pretty much superior in most respects to other nations aircraft or at least equal in others - as in vs Spitfire, Hurricane, P-36/P-40 etc.  In the MA here, I like to use it for base defense as it climbs real nice so I can grab qucikly for the bomber intercept and it turns even better. Well, unless you have a 202, Zeke or Spit V on your "6"

 -Westy

[Vladd]

Nexx

The E4 did have good turn performance but as it's main adversaries were early Spits and Hurris the LW pilots didn't use it that way. Just like the F4 it could outclimb and outdive the nimble British planes and thus potentially dictate the terms of engagement.

Used by Experten the a/c was totally deadly. A single Staffel of 109Es (7/JG26 under Joachim Muncheberg) operating from Sicily Feb to May 1941 over Malta fair slaughtered the defending Hurricanes. They claimed 42 victories and did not suffer a single loss.

Basically it was flown in exacly the same way as a 109F, but didn't have quite the horsepower.


Vladd
 
 

[Jochen]

If we take AH Bf 109F-4 as a reference E-4 (or E-7) is different in few areas:

-E-4 has clipped wingtips, F-4 has rounded tips. This gave F-4 bit better turning ability, not much but it was better.

-E-4 has quite unaerodynamic cowling, engine air intage and spinner giving more drag. F-4 has much better aerodynamics in these areas and with more horsepower it is quite a bit faster.

For its time E-4 was a fast plane but it's wingloading was higher than of most of it's enemies (Spit, Hurricane, French planes in general) so it was not able to turnfight as good as it's enemies. It was used as hit and run plane, cathing slower enemies, attacking them and then zooming to safety. This is apparent by the armament which was heavy for its time, containing two 20 mm MG FF cannons which could really mess up lightly armored fighter planes and bombers of early war period.

------------------
jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[SKurj]

e4 couldn't turn with the hurri's or early spits. It could outrun them and e fight them until it ran outta fuel tho


SKurj

[Replicant]

Thanks for the info guys, would like to see one included in AH for the historical stuff (as well as Hurricanes, P40 etc)!  

Regards

'Nexx'

[bloom25]

In the book "Fighter" by Len Deighton he has a diagram showing that the 109E3 actually turned better than the spitfireI or Hurricane, despite the higher wingloading.  The E's main problem was that it was extremely short ranged and fragile.  (Braced tail.   )



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[juzz]

"E-4 has clipped wingtips, F-4 has rounded tips. This gave F-4 bit better turning ability, not much but it was better."

When they first made the Franz, all they did was clip the Emil's wing, giving it a shorter span to improve speed. Unfortunately this gave the aircraft bad stalling/landing characteristics, so they restored some of the lost wing area with the addition of the rounded wingtips. The square-tipped Emil wing actually has more area, but is shorter in span.

"In the book "Fighter" by Len Deighton he has a diagram showing that the 109E3 actually turned better than the spitfireI or Hurricane, despite the higher wingloading."

Muahahaha! Finally someone has brought that one up!  

Those figures were calculated, and unfortunately the weight used for the Bf 109E-3 was incorrect - too low. Also the calculations were for a "sustained turn" at an airspeed of 300mph, meaning the fighters would have to pull something like 7-8G to actually produce the given radii, and would need power vastly exceeding the ~1100HP their engines could produce to sustain that speed!

[niklas]

got this from an agw thread:


A quote from Erwin Leykauf:

.....sometimes the slots would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots, thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason, it is possible to find pilots from this period (1940) who will tell you that the spitfires turned better than the Bf109. that is not true, I myself had many dogfights with spitfires and could always outturn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becomeing critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal elipse rather than a circle. In this way one could outturn the spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it.

[juzz]

So? Gabreski said his P-47D could outclimb any German fighter in a spiral climb...

[niklas]

must be hard to accept for you, juzz, that the emil with itīs technology was superior to the early spits / hurricanes and what the rest of the world had at this time eh?

a figher is more than only weight, horsepower and wingarea

A really great answer from you LOL....

[SageFIN]

I can't remember the exact form of Gabreski's quote but if he was referring to climb that was more zoomish than what could be understood as a spiral climb, then I believe him. Though who can say what exactly he was referring to any more (or is Gabreski still alive?).

Of course a heavy P47 should outclimb every German fighter if taken into a climb from a high enough speed.

And what comes to the slats of the 109, how do you use those in calculations? Take their area and add it to the wing area? Or what?

I remember reading somewhere in this BBS though that AH already has the 109's slats modelled to some extent. I am very uncertain though.

------------------
---
SageFIN

"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---

[Andy Bush]

niklas

>>must be hard to accept for you, juzz, that the emil with itīs technology was superior to the early spits / hurricanes and what the rest of the world had at this time<<

That's a pretty broad statement. Not that the 109E did not have some excellent features...but just exactly what are you referring to here?

Andy

[Karnak]

Niklas,
What was the skill level of the pilots in those Spitfires he out turned and shot down?

I could say the following:

"Sailor" Malan beat Werner Molders when they met.  I take this to mean the Spitfire was better than the Bf109.

Now, its true that Malan did wound Molders and put him out of action for awhile.  But I have no idea of the exact details of their fight, so any claim of using this to prove that the Spitfire is better than the Bf109 would be a mistake.

Beware of making solid judgements based on pilot anecdotes.  You can probably find a few to back up almost any statement that you want to make about WWII aircraft.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 11-07-2000).]

[Andy Bush]

Replicant

I'm not sure you got an answer to your question...and it may be that finding one will be tough.

The main problem is that we can't take a very broad (and subjective) subject and reduce it down into simplistic statements.

When seen in the light of typical LW operations at that time (late 1940 thru the end of 1941), I don't think the term 'turnfighter' has much relevance...nor do I think that the concept of 'angles' versus 'energy' fighters was widely recognized. The LW was quite willing then to turn and burn with anyone. They were still on the offensive while the Allies were still fighting a defensive war.

This mindset (and the fact that the LW had not yet lost many of its experienced pilots) allowed them to use the best features of the early 109 models...fast acceleration, excellent climb rate, good high altitude capability, and relatively heavy armament.

The E-4 model was a slight improvement over the E-3...but only slight. Better cockpit visibility, slightly faster, but less firepower since the nose 20mm cannon was initially removed.

The F model saw a number of aerodynamic improvements but at the cost of significantly reduced armament...only two nose mg and one 20mm cannon.

This was significant...because by the time the F models were being introduced, the tide of the war was changing. The LW was going from offense to defense, and the 109 reduced firepower was a disadvantage. Add to that the fact that many of the initial highly experienced pilots were now dead...and the 'big picture' of how the 109 fit into the war was quite a bit different from what it had been in the Battle Of Britain.

Anyway...not an easy subject to do in '25 words or less'!!

Andy