Originally posted by 1K3
I guess they were trying to talk about later 109s but there are no examples of them now :(
Originally posted by mussie
More lost on takeoff and landing than in the air....
CRAP!!!!!!
Originally posted by humble
It's funny but everytime I brought that up in the "expertian" forum it was never addressed. More frontline luftwaffe 109 pilots died in accidents then in combat.
Originally posted by humble
As a side note the guy who did all the flying in saving private ryan died shortly after filming was completed during a landing accident in a 109 during clear sunny weather in spain....
Originally posted by Viking
Ummm … no. If you want me to believe that you'd better back that up.
If you're talking about Mark Hanna … he died in a Buchon (Spanish 109) when its Merlin engine caught fire in flight. He crash landed the burning plane at an airfield and died later in hospital from being severely burned. The Buchon was burned beyond repair.
Originally posted by Krusty
Another source erronously reporting the cannon was in the engine (and not mentioning the 2 very visible cannon barrels sticking out of the wings).
Cool to see all the war-time footage, though.
Originally posted by humble
It was a very very difficult plane to handle. Probably the single most difficult piston engine fighter ever built in this regard.
According to witnesses testimonies, the statements received later on, and what is deduced from communications with Sabadell airport control tower, once at the airport, and when both aircraft were performing a pass at a low height and speed over runway 31/13, the aircraft abandoned the formation to the left, making part of the left approach pattern and performed a pass at a low altitude (estimated at 10-20 meters) and high speed (estimated at 260-270 knots) that ended approximately 200 meters from the end of the runway, in a climb (estimated at a 5g «pull») with a barrel roll in the direction of Tarrasa, returning to carry out the left approach pattern to enter on runway threshold 31. The figure estimates correspond to the comments sent later on the aforementioned first-degree relative of the pilot, which are considered to match other testimonies and comments received and analysed.
During the pattern, the pilot requested authorisation to land on runway threshold 13. The controller authorised him to use any one of the thresholds, at his choice. In order to proceed with this manoeuvre through runway threshold 13, the aircraft had to cross the field and carry out two steep turns to the left, the last one of which, at least, was carried out at a very low speed and very low height, in landing configuration, with the landing gear down.
All the available data, witnesses testimonies, the times stated by the tower controller and the images on the aforementioned fan videotape, lead to conclude that the final turn of the manoeuvre to face runway end 13 was too tight, possibly because the aircraft had overshot the runway threshold and the pilot, wanting to be positioned for the landing, had to look back. According to the pilot’s relative, the manoeuvre should have been made with 35-40 banking degree, while the controller estimates it to have been between 50-60 degrees.
The result was that the aircraft suffered a left wing-drop during the manoeuvre, losing height quickly. Although the pilot tried to recover it by increasing power and stepping on the right rudder to the maximum, he was able to climb a little, but not enough to avoid the accident...
...Regarding the accident itself, several hypotheses have been considered to explain how an experienced aerobatic pilot, like the one in command, could have entered into a stall condition in the final turn.
a) Possible momentary distraction when looking back to locate the runway threshold that had been overshot.
b) An erroneous estimate of the height of the bank or slope located at the runway end and, when attempting to correct it, the increase of power and rudder, causing a bigger banking due to the effect of the propeller slipstream and torque.
c) The aforementioned relative of the pilot suggests as a probable cause the possible persistence of the vortexes generated in the quick pass and the «pull» previously exerted. In this case, when crossing the vortex, an increase in angle of attack would be induced with the resulting stall condition. This hypothesis cannot be discarded completely. However, it is impossible to know the effect and condition of these vortexes more than two-and-a-half minutes after the pass, as deduced from the times stated in communications with the tower, and, additionally the pilot’s experience makes it plausible to presume he would be aware that the airfield is short.
It is therefore concluded that it is not possible to accurately determine the exact cause of the accident.
It's an absolute gem...flies like a dream!
Originally posted by 1K3
Tell that to many Luftwaffe pilots who racked up 3-digit kills from the West, East, and Africa. The only reason why it is hard to land and take off a 109 is because of the narrow gear and you have a very small plane with a big engine (torque is the enemy)
And you forgot the Finnish pilots who flew Bf 109s. These guys were able to land their Bf 109s at a short runway!
Originally posted by 1K3
Featuring Oscar Boesch
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Nr91RqTIh0
Originally posted by Krusty
Drediock, it was designed from the start to eventually have a gun firing through the hub. A few test versions had 7mm guns and a few test versions had MG/FF in the center, but no production units did. This is why the E-7 finally filled in the hole, because they realized no matter what they did they'd never get the hub gun working. This wasn't fixed until the F series, which was redesigned to better accomodate a hub gun.
Originally posted by Krusty
Sure, but all the wartime footage (well, most of it) was 109Es, and the museum piece was a 109E, so you'd think they'd specify :P
Originally posted by Krusty
Another source erronously reporting the cannon was in the engine (and not mentioning the 2 very visible cannon barrels sticking out of the wings).
Cool to see all the war-time footage, though.
Originally posted by humble
The website you have linked has many interesting and I'm sure factually correct snippits. It is also however the creation of a very biased group and isnt really an even handed portrayal. It is in fact substancially twisted in many ways.
Originally posted by Krusty
Are you saying we're wrong and some book is right? When that book is shown to be wrong by almost every major 109 source out there?
So, you're saying our K-4 should have MG151/20s under the cowling? That's a widely published myth as well. Never happened.
Please clarify that last post
EDIT: Your image says E-3, and the nose gun myth is for the E-3, but the image clearly shows an E-4. :aok
Originally posted by Xjazz
LOL! We surely take your objective, unbised and truthful words... :rofl
Good troll :aok
Originally posted by humble
As for the 109....well when Gorring asked Galland what he needed to win the airwar....Galland gave him a simple answer "Spitfires"....sums it up for me:)
Originally posted by Sweet2th
And when was that quote given to Goring?
The germans didn't believe in RADAR yet thier pilots were constantly boggled as to how the british were on top of them no matter what direction they came from.
Originally posted by 1K3
That was only during battle of britain. Tables turned in 1942 when it was RAF's turn to attack northern france. Spits Vs and hurricanes were massacred by Butcherbirds (Fw 190). 190s practically replaced the 109s on the western front.
And when was that quote given to Goring?
As for the 109....well when Gorring asked Galland what he needed to win the airwar....Galland gave him a simple answer "Spitfires"....sums it up for me
And when was that quote given to Goring
Originally posted by 1K3
That was after the spectacular loss of luftwaffe bombers trying to attack england. I don't remember the extact date but that was at the time when luftwaffe sent ~1,000 plus bombers and fighters.
Originally posted by humble
[...]
As for the 109....well when Gorring asked Galland what he needed to win the airwar....Galland gave him a simple answer "Spitfires"....sums it up for me:)
Prove that your right and i am wrong.That pic is out of a book by a respected publisher, and they derive thier facts from german documents.I have yet to see a book published by Krusty1, so we have to go with what there is and not speculation from the internet.
Originally posted by humble
Hmmm I proved every comment here....
I've long since quit worrying about what the local "experts" think. In the end they turn out to be just like viking....no correct facts and no willingness to explore the realities. His comments on Mark Hanna are about par for the course...
As for the 109....well when Gorring asked Galland what he needed to win the airwar....Galland gave him a simple answer "Spitfires"....sums it up for me:)
what you all fail to see is in black and white.The word " Optional " is in the description of the armament of the plane.Many LW pilots had thier own personal aircraft and had them set up to thier liking.
Originally posted by Bronk
Here we go........................... ............................. ..................
............................. ............................. ............................. ......
............................. ............................. ............................. .........
............................. ............................. ............................a gain.
Strap in folks it's about to get bumpy.:)
Bronk
Originally posted by mussie
More lost on takeoff and landing than in the air....
CRAP!!!!!!
Originally posted by Kweassa
Which part of the sentence "No Emil with a prop cannon ever served with the LW in actual squadron strength during the BoB" do you not understand?
Originally posted by Benny Moore
But there's one more thing. The P-38 had Fowler flaps. NACA (now NASA) tests show Fowler flaps to give approximately 30% more lift than conventional flaps, while having no increase in drag.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
With these flaps located nicely behind the twin Allisons, the P-38 enjoyed a considerable advantage over it's opponents. So while the Me-109, due to its lower weight and higher drag, was better in the instantaneous turn, the P-38 would soon catch up and then surpass the 109 in sustained turning.
Also, you might want to consider the conversation up to this point. Nobody's been saying "The 109 was uber!" or "it's way undermodeled!" or "it should turn 3x (5x?) tighter than it does in AH!!!". Nobody said that, leaving me wondering why you brought this up in the first place.
"Using just these figures, the sustained turn rates the sustained turn rates should be similar but the Me-109 should have a somewhat smaller turning circle because there is less inertia to overcome."
Funny how a bunch of people who play a video game start callin others names cuz the others won't agree with what they say.
" I really don't care what you say"
And the majority are Aeronautical Engineers who travel back in time to get the correct facts about aviation history, where would we be without all you time traveling dweebs?
Germany then went to the opposite extreme and selected the small, low-velocity Swiss Oerlikon FF 20 mm cannon for development. A modified version, the MG-FF, was put into pro¡©duction by Ikaria Werke Berlin, and entered Luftwaffe service. Initial attempts to fit this as an engine gun ran into reliability problems, so the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 of 1939 carried two MG-FFs in the wings and a pair of 7.92 mm MG 17 guns synchronised to fire through the propeller disc. However, many Bf 109s were still armed with four RCMGs at the start of the war.
- A. Williams, "CANNON OR MACHINE GUN?:The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy" -
Originally posted by Benny Moore
But there's one more thing. The P-38 had Fowler flaps. NACA (now NASA) tests show Fowler flaps to give approximately 30% more lift than conventional flaps, while having no increase in drag. With these flaps located nicely behind the twin Allisons, the P-38 enjoyed a considerable advantage over it's opponents. So while the Me-109, due to its lower weight and higher drag, was better in the instantaneous turn, the P-38 would soon catch up and then surpass the 109 in sustained turning. Me-109 aces advocated scissors when fighting 38s, noting that the P-38 was capable of "appreciably tighter turns" and "out-turned [the 109] with ease." The scissors, however, favored the Me-109's superior low-speed roll and instantaneous turn. The idea was to keep changing direction; the P-38 pilot could not follow for a short while, hampered as he was by his airplane's weight and inferior low-speed roll.
Originally posted by 1K3
would game data count? ;)
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php
Here's lie number one. The amounts of horsepower for the engines on the two ships were roughly equal; that is, roughly 1850 (with two engines for the P-38, doubling it). Just because the "official" rating was much lower for the P-38 does not make it the standard rating, or even the correct one. I suppose you'd also claim that since the F-117 didn't "officially" exist for many years, there was no such aircraft until the time it was made official? Allison representitives travelling to various airbases in Europe discovered that crews were using Allison ratings, not U.S.A.A.F. ratings. Official German ratings were often higher than the ones used; U.S.A.A.F. ratings were usually lower.
Here's lie number two. The P-38's normal combat weight was nowhere near 17,500 pounds as you claim. By the time most P-38s would have reached combat, they would have weighed less than 16,000 pounds. 15,000 is not a great stretch (that's a P-38L with 25% internal fuel).
This is misleading. The Spitfire out-turned the Me-109 in spite of lower aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is one factor that improves turn, but it obviously is not the whole story.
Yes, slats tighten the turn by raising the allowable angle of attack. However, the amount of lift generated is negligable, so they do not affect turn rate.
So while the Me-109, due to its lower weight and higher drag, was better in the instantaneous turn, the P-38 would soon catch up and then surpass the 109 in sustained turning. Me-109 aces advocated scissors when fighting 38s, noting that the P-38 was capable of "appreciably tighter turns" and "out-turned [the 109] with ease."[/u].
I note that you don't accuse me of being un-objective, or wrong; you accuse me of being dishonest. I find this quite normal given your own complete lack of scruples when it comes to your own favorite ship. You compare me with Kurfurst? Bah! Whether or not I am right, or objective, I am not a liar.
Originally posted by Kweassa
ps) Man, am I good or what...
It may seem that way, when you're standing on 2 legs and holding the club. Think about the poor seal, it just didn't have a chance.
Originally posted by 1K3
PWNED by a "Professor":aok :t
Originally posted by Kweassa
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating of 1,600hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.18hp/lbs
* Two Allisons at war emergency rating generalized at 2,000hp to a plane with 17,500lbs combat weight = 0.23hp/lbs
27% exaggeration in thrust:weight ratio in favor of the P-38L
Originally posted by Kweassa
by dragging in field modification and unauthorized numbers for engine ratings at the 2,000hp figure for both planes you've neutered a 40% advantage in hp/lbs in favor of the 109, to a mere 20%. Basically, the larger the volume of exaggeration in available engine power, the smaller the gape between the P-38 and the 109 becomes.
Originally posted by Kweassa
"Lie"? I'm not one using unofficial, 'field mod' numbers.
Originally posted by Kweassa
Oh, so now you suddenly use the term "turn rate", as opposed to the generic term "turn", which we were both using, that implied a comparison in general turn performance which more or less involved the two planes' rivalry in the radius of the turn.
Originally posted by Kweassa
According to my definition, withholding evidence, warping the context, or any other such attempts that manipulate people to believe something that is not right counts as "lying".
Originally posted by Viking
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
Nuf said.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The only Me-109s that were good turners are the ones in simulators and in the minds of modern admirers of Nazi weaponry. Armchair "experts" who play aerial combat simulators and games look at one figure - wingloading. If they're relatively intelligent armchair experts, they'll also consider powerloading. However, the actual equations are quite complex. There are four factors which must be equally considered, not two. Lift, drag, thrust, and weight ... didn't anyone go to ground school?
Originally posted by Bronk
Hardly. :rolleyes:
Bronk
Originally posted by Viking
Meaning?
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, lets leave that one alone. My point however: the 109 must have been a competitive fighter throughout the war for these pilots to have achieved all those victories.
Ohh I agree 100% with this. Fine pilots and a fine AC.
Hartmann and co. would not have made it (or even survived the war) if they were exclusively flying say ... Hurricanes.
Originally posted by Bronk
See here is where you get a bit funky.
Because I believe Hartmann and co. could have survived if they had flow say......
Spitfires.
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, I agree 100%. For most of the war there was little to choose between the 109 and Spitfire.
Originally posted by Bronk
Crap me and viking agree on 2 things now.
Check the temp boys, I think hell just froze over.
:D
Bronk
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Hans Joachim Marseille
Originally posted by humble
Johnson was bounced and almost killed early in his career my Egon Meyer (or Lang). All that saved him was the fact that Meyer had run out of 20mm already. He actually felt like his plane was unflyable and tried to bail out but the canopy was so shot up he couldnt get it open. So he managed to nurse it home and had to be pryed out of the wreck....
There is one well known german ace {Adolf Glunz}who not only was never shot down/scratched but his plane NEVER took any serious damage (possibly not even a bullet hole). He once went "glider" {engine siezed due to mechanical failure} during a fight with two p-47's and managed to escape them and ditch. He flew 500+ sorties (almost all in the west), engaged in 232 documented aerial combats and scored 71 kills.
Originally posted by 1K3
Still, the BEST Luft ace they had was a Frenchman!:D
Originally posted by Viking
It seems Humble is unwilling to admit the 109 was a competitive fighter. Oh well...
Originally posted by Viking
Was wondering when my stalkers would show up. Didn't take long!:rofl
Originally posted by Viking
Since you obviously didn't notice it, I'm no longer using the ignore list ... I even replied to Humble in my previous post. So why don't you pay more attention ... with all due respect etc. etc. The ignore list was obviously working against its intended purpose.
If Humble is such a kind gentleman he wouldn't have trolled this thread like he did. If Humble is such a kind gentleman, there would be no need for Skuzzy to moderate him. Tell me thy company, and I'll tell thee what thou art. With all due respect and salutations etc. etc.
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 ...
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You guys have no idea how much I envy you being able to use the ignore list.
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
cool?
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.
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.
Originally posted by humbleTo 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.
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.
Originally posted by humbleThe 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.
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.
Originally posted by B@tfinkVSome 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...
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'
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.
Originally posted by humble
"Flying" and landing are to different things
Originally posted by humble
I simply indicated that the 109 is a very difficult plane to fly.
Originally posted by humble
If we look at the statistical probabilities the vast majority of aviation accidents are during takeoff and landing.
Originally posted by humble
I think this speaks more toward your lack of research then anything else since its a widely documented reality.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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'
Now comes the only tricky part about flying the Spit, I found the aircraft is easily landed by a slight hold off, touching down on the main wheels with the tail wheel a foot off the ground. This allows for an adequate view over the nose and good directional control due to the relatively high speed at this stage of the landing. The view is still adequate over the nose in this attitude and directional control is good. However after lowering the tail to the ground, you have to be positive and quick with rudder inputs as with no steerable tail wheel and no slipstream over the tail (throttle closed), you have to dance on the rudder a bit to keep her straight. With that narrow track undercarriage, any swing must be stopped quickly, or it could fast develop into a ground loop. Can get interesting in a crosswind! Braking to help directional control can be used but with caution as the brakes fade when they get hot, and you could put her on her nose.
James Feuilherade, Spitfire pilot.
At the outbreak of war, 306 mk1 Spitfires had been delivered and 36 of these had been destroyed in training accidents.
Early "rhubarbs" failed to tempt the Luftwaffe into the skies. So bombers were sent over, with fighter escorts. The first was staged on 10 January 1941, consisting of 6 Blenheims and 6 Squadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires. It cost the RAF the loss of 1 Hurricane with 2 Spitfires written off in landing accidents, 1 fatal.
LF Mk.XVIe, TB863 (c/n CBAF-10895, ZK-XVI) It is currently the only airworthy Spitfire operating in New Zealand. The aircraft (c/n CBAF10895, ex G-CDAN) was originally built in late 1944, entering RAF service on February 27 1945 with 19 MU at St.Athan. In March it was issued to 453(Australia) SQN at Matlask, Norfolk and coded FU-P. It later served with 183, 567, and 691 Squadrons. While with 3 CAACU at Exeter it suffered category 5 damage in a takeof accident on July 17 1951 and was struck off charge on September 28 1951. The aircraft was subsequently acquired by MGM and used in the 1955 movie "Reach for the Sky". It was then stored until the filming of the movie " The Battle of Britain". The aircraft was acquired by A.W.(Bill) Francis on December 11 1968 and moved to Southend where it was stored in his garden, then later moved to a Museum at the local airport. In July 1974 a move to Duxford was made with a view to restoration at the Imperial War Museum, but this did not occur and the aircraft returned to its owner in 1977. The aircraft was moved again in October 1982 to Personal Plane Services at Booker. Restoration began, and the aircraft was registered G-CDAN on November 30. The aircraft was subsequently sold to the Fighter Collection in 1985 who continued the restoration. It was purchased by Sir Tim Wallis in 1986, and restoration continued at Duxford. The first post restoration flight was made by Stephen Grey on September 14 1988. The aircraft was shipped to New Zealand with its first local flight (also by Stephen Grey) on January 25 1989. The aircraft was successfully displayed in Auckland, but on the flight south to Wanaka had fuel problems. The aircraft made a forced landing in a paddock neighbouring the Waipukurau Aerodrome. SAFE Air at Woodbourne carried out repairs, and the aircraft returned to the air on April 7th 1990. The aircraft was again damaged in an accident at RNZAF Woodbourne on November 18 1992 when the aircraft developed a swing landing on wet grass and the undercarriage collapsed after striking a taxiway. SAFE Air again carried out the repairs, and the aircraft was returned to the air in early 1994. Today the aircraft is airworthy and based with the Alpine Fighter Collection at Luggate airfield near Wanaka.
FR Mk.XIV, NH799 (ZK-XIV) is currently under restoration to flying condition at Ardmore. Originally built at Aldermaston, it was taken on charge by the RAF on February 16, 1945. Initially with 9 MU at Cosford, it was transferred in May to 215 MU prior to despatch to India on July 2nd. After arriving on July 28, 1945 the aircraft was attached to Air Command South East Asia and served with 49 Squadron. On December 29, 1947 the aircraft was passed to the Indian Air Force. A gap in the aircraft's records ends when Doug Arnold purchased and shipped the aircraft back to the UK in 1981. The aircraft was subsequently stored at Blackbushe and Bitteswell until it was acquired by The Fighter Collection and restoration began in 1986. The wings had been completed along with some work on the fuselage when the aircraft was sent to Historic Flying Ltd for completion in 1993. While restoration was underway there, the aircraft was sold to the Alpine Fighter Collection. The first post restoration flight was made on January 21, 1994 as G-BUZU. After testing the aircraft was shipped on February 14 to New Zealand where it was registered ZK-XIV. Flight testing was conducted on March 31 and the aircraft then displayed at the Warbirds over Wanaka show during the next three days. The aircraft was badly damaged along with Sir Tim Wallis in an accident on Jan 2nd, 1996 at Wanaka. The aircraft was purchased from the insurers by Brian Hare of Hamilton and American partner Paul Page . The aircraft is still on the New Zealand register - initially listed to PAC Ltd, the register know lists the aircraft to a the Aviation Trading Company Ltd of Cambridge. Restoration commenced in 1997 with AvSpecs Ltd in Rotorua and continues, although the company is now at Ardmore.
LF Mk.IXc MK732 (c/n CBAF-IX-1732) was taken on charge by the RAF on March 8 1944 at 39 MU. The aircraft was issued to 485(NZ) Squadron on April 25 and coded OU-Q. Damaged in an accident it spent time with 41 RSU, and major battle damage resulted in repairs at 1 CRU (Cowley) before returning to the squadron. The aircraft was put into storage by 39 MU in December 1944. In June 1948 it was passed to the RNAF where it initially went into storage again at Leeuwarden. From April 1951 it served as H-25 with the Jacht Vlieg Fighter school at Twente and (after repairs at Fokker) 322 Squadron (coded 3W-17) at Soesterberg. Retired in September 1953, the aircraft was struck off charge on June 4 1954 and moved to Eindhoven for use as a decoy. Illicitley acquired as a gate guard by 14 Squadron RAF, the aircraft was held at Oldenburg, Ahlhorn, and Gutersloh. It was moved to the UK by Belfast on June 27 1969, and stored at St.Athan and Bicester. In October 1974 it was passed to the BBMF for spares. The largely intact remains went back to the Netherlands in March 1984 and were subsequently stored at Gilze-Rijen from 1985. In 1990 the aircraft was acquired for restoration by what would become the Dutch Spitfire Flight. Final assembly took place in the UK where the first post-restoration flightwas made in Pete Kynsey's hands at Lydd on June 10, 1993. Registered as G-HVDM to DSG(Guernsey) Ltd, the aircraft was delivered to the Dutch Spitfire Flight on June 26. The aircraft appeared in the colours of 485(NZ) Squadron aircraft OU-U "Baby Bea V" for the 50th anniversary of D-day. Damaged in a landing accident on August 8 1995 at Rochester, the aircraft was returned to the air in November 1997. Today the aircraft is registered as PH-OUQ and based at Gilze Rijen where it operates in 322 Squadron RNAF colours coded 3W-17.
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
good stuff from everyone, im enjoying the learning.
Originally posted by humble
"No more flawed than the Spitfire..."
Originally posted by Viking
My point exactly. Thank you for confirming it.
Krusty, when someone hangs on to his bias so religiously as Humble no amount of rational reasoning is going to change his mind. This argument is at least 3 years in the making. From "Romanian Henshells" to the origin of the P51; from praising the P47 and P38 for their "seamless transition" to ground attack to dismissing the Fw 190F as some half hearted attempt at ground support as evidence of US superiority in ground support ideology. Humble has been proven wrong at every turn for (at least) the last three years by people far better versed in these matters than me. Yet he persists.
Originally posted by humbleWith all due respect Humble, but you're being biased as much as Viking. To be honest, both, his and your arguments are weak, and both are giving selected information to support either claims.
The 109 was, is and will continue to be one of if not the most difficult piston engine planes in the world to fly. That is a simple statement of fact. Once again I've given you an even unbiased overview and seen you seek to grasp a single out of context sentence fragment while ignoring everything else.
Originally posted by humbleHumble, not every landing/take-off incident/loss was due to the plane handling. Blown tires, landing gear failures, low visibility, engine failures, human errors, bad runways, you name it. If you add all those to your numbers separately then Germans would lose the war right in 1939. If not and are already accounted for in your percentage than my numbers are accurate.
go back and look at the original comments....
However they do propagate a number of myths and errors about many planes (typical Discovery), among them the 109's "one-third destroyed in landing accidents" myth. The actual number is about 5%, which is typical for WWII fighters. It was a difficult plane to handle on the ground, but not that difficult.
Originally posted by Panzzer
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.
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Seems to support the idea that it [109] was nothing like an 'easy plane to fly'.
bat
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
and I think you better rewatch the film and take a closer look at the nose of the AC with the big cannonbarrel hole in it LMAO
Wonder how good it felt for that old 109 pilot to climb back in one of those again
Originally posted by Krusty
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).
Originally posted by humbleNTSB Identification: FTW78FQD30
This is a 60 yr old pilot with over 20,000 hrs who pranged his 109 trying to takeoff....
Originally posted by 2bighorn
From the official report:
Originally posted by Kweassa
No more MK108 for the G-6s, Eagle.