Good 109E article

[Chalenge]

The 109D saw only limited service during the war and would not add anything appreciable to the plane set.

[Angus]

Only AFTER PZL-11, I-116, P-36, D-520 and such...
Would be a nifty opponent for the B-239, I-16 and perhaps Hurry-I.

[Charge]

Agreed. While an interesting plane, it still remains only as a curiosity with E series being the version that saw "actual" heavy use. I'd rather see E-1 or E-3 if these ever came under consideration.

Calm down Angus, I don't believe all that was said in the report either. I'm sure the plane was very impressive at its time but add year or even a half and it would seem quite average. To understand his views how he saw the 109 you'd need to know what else he compared it to. E.g. what were the American contemporaries at that time and their performance.

Good info on engines DieHard, thx.

-C+

[Angus]

That is a good point, - about the Americans I mean.
While they seem to have flown both the Spit and Hurry prototypes, which would be the U.S. monoplane counterparts?
P-36? Seversky? Was Brewster about?
Anyway, t'was nice to have the Hp at SL. I never found that, nor do I seem to have it in the books. And the whole 109 volumes are a big chunk for me to buy

[Die Hard]

The account comes from Rall.
What he points out is that the UC is too narrow to support the power you have (already with the 109D!), so take-off accidents are not unique to students...

Quiz: Which of the two aircraft had the widest landing gear?

Hint: It's not the Spitfire.

As a sidenote, if HTC adds more into the early planeset, the 109D is perhaps a must?

It would be pretty pointless. It only saw very limited action in the early months of WWII during the Polish campaign. By the time of the Battle of France it had been replaced by the E.

[Jabberwock]

On the T/O issue:

RAF tests state that the early Spitfire with wooden fixed pitch prop had a 420 yard T/O run. Later two pitch metal units were 320 yards, and T/O with Rotol CSPs were 195-225 yards (or about 45-55% of that with the fixed prop).

Early Hurricane tests show a 265 yard T/O run. Not sure what prop this is, but test was Apr-1936, so I'd geusstimate a wooden fixed pitch unit.

So, if Major Williams is correct, the 109D had a T/O run of somewhere around 105-132.5 yards. Not impossible, but unlikely.

[Die Hard]

I guess that clears it up.

[Die Hard]

From 'Myths of the Battle of Britain' by Major D. P. Tidy:

"The initial acceleration of the Bf 109E was good, and there was no tendency to swing or bucket. When the throttle was opened the stick had to be held hard forward, but when the tail came up, it could be eased back. So long as no effort was made to pull the aircraft off quickly the take-off was easy and straightforward, the run remarkably short, and the initial rate of climb very good. The Bf 109 was definitely superior in these respects to Spitfires and Hurricanes with two-pitch airscrews."

Mind you, that's the E model.

[Die Hard]

Also from Major Tidy:

"...originally the Spitfire was designed for a Rotol constant-speed propeller which, owing to development troubles, had not evolved by 1938, and so the Spitfire came into service with fixed-pitch wooden propeller. The design of fixed-pitch propeller for an aeroplane with a speed range from stalling at about 70 mph (112 km/h) to 361 mph (579 km/h) at top speed, was an almost impossible compromise and, with the top speed optimized, take-off was correspondingly poor — in fact, it was terrible. So bad, in fact, that Spitfires could at first only be operated from Duxford and Catterick, both of which had good open approaches in both directions and which were Fighter Command’s biggest airfields."

[Anaxogoras]

So in other words, the original article about the 109D may not have been the huge exaggeration some were saying it must be.  In fact, it sounds like an accurate description vs a Spitfire with a fixed pitch propeller.  Good work Die Hard.

[Die Hard]

Thanks. It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators. Even calling them "fanboys". The undeserving victim this time was a world famous (at the time) military aviator with his own Schneider Trophy air racing team and a Pulitzer winner. As always these individuals are only showing their own ignorance, but it does get annoying at times.

[Jabberwock]

Done some more digging:

T/O distances for Bf-109G6 trop, w/ 20 degrees flap:

3360 kg: 455/440 m (0.9 m/sec, 1.9 m/sec wind)
3340 kg: 457/431 m (0, 2.3 m/sec wind)
3320 kg: 411 m (2.5 m/sec wind)
3300 kg: 399 m (2.6 m/sec wind)
3280 kg: 408 m (1.7 m/sec wind)

Normal loaded weight was 3,360 kg.

Figures with 40 degrees of flap are actually longer.

Weight obviously makes a major difference to T/O performance, but I’m not sure how well this new info would gel with the earlier comments on 109D T/O performance. Given that the 109G-6 had a power to weight ratio of about 0.44 PS/kg and the 109D had a power to weight ratio of 0.35 PS/kg, I wonder how much this affected the T/O distance?
(These are obviously rough figures using best available power, not necessarily T/O power)

Then again, the other major consideration to balance is the much lower wingloading of the 109D

Sidestepping a little, and the Gloster Gladiator had a T/O run of 165 m with 2 bladed fixed pitch wooden prop, and 150 m with three bladed prop (not sure if fixed, two pitch or CSP). Power to weight was 0.50 PS/kg (better than the 109G-6 ).

Surely the less heavily wing-loaded biplane would get off the ground faster than a 109D?

[Die Hard]

It's irrelevant. The 109D had a short T/O run yes, perhaps even remarkably short, but the important fact is that the Spitfire had an amazingly long T/O run due to its propeller in 1938. The Hurricane also suffered from its fixed-pitch prop. Major Williams praise of the 109D's TO distance must be viewed in the correct context.

[Stoney]

Thanks. It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators. Even calling them "fanboys". The undeserving victim this time was a world famous (at the time) military aviator with his own Schneider Trophy air racing team and a Pulitzer winner. As always these individuals are only showing their own ignorance, but it does get annoying at times.

In the absence of quantitative data, I think we would all be well served to question annecdotal statements such as those made by the good Major.  Obviously, given the other research you presented, it casts his statement in the plausible category, but still its an ambiguous statement, especially considering the political environment that surrounded his and Lindhberg's trip to Germany.  Robert Johnson said his P-47 could outclimb a Spit 9 too.  Should we just accept that at face value?

[Die Hard]

I'm pretty sure a P-47 can out climb a Spit 9 under certain circumstances. Without knowing the context of Robert Johnson's comment it should be taken for what it is; an anecdote. It sure as hell shouldn't be used to discredit anything else he said.