Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Serenity on June 08, 2007, 03:31:29 PM
-
Alright, I was going through my library of documents, and I stumbled on a GREAT Bf-109 article. Its from a website, but I cannot remember which website, and have been unable to locate it. I was gonna just post it directly here, but its 98 pages long. So, if anyone would like a copy of it, drop me an e-mail at Echo5dash7@hotmail.com and Ill pass it along. Its a very long read, took me two days to get through it all and take notes, but its well worth it for anyone interested in this aircraft.
-
Right here man.
Edit: Oh yes, esx_raptor@hotmail.com
-
Okay, lol, someone was kind enough to give me the site, so ill post a link.
Bf-109 Article (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)
-
Awesome.
-
I am trying very hard to restrain myself. So all I will say is that the Finnish fighter pilot who said that "the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy" must have been a midget. I had the opportunity to sit in an Me-109 recently, and although I am a small man (about five foot ten and a hundred twenty-five pounds), I had a great deal of difficulty fitting in. My knees were practically touching my chin, and there was little room to move the stick. It's a good thing the fuel tank was so small, because a several hour flight must have been agony.
-
Being a 5'10" is small man?:p I say that's mainstream height:aok
-
US mean height for men is 5'8" last I heard.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It's a good thing the fuel tank was so small, because a several hour flight must have been agony.
Wasn't so small, was bigger than the ones in most Spitfire and P-39 versions, for example. And it could indeed fly several hours.
So lucky for you that you weren't a 109 pilot :)
-
Just bring a cushion for your buttocks and you'll be fine:aok
-
With a cushion, the canopy would not close. There's not two inches to spare. The guy said that you had to taxi with the canopy open unless you were really short, or bumping over the grass would smack your head.
-
Must have played hell with the canopy hinge since the canopy was so heavy.
Sure Meyer, what ever you say
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp4.jpg)
-
If you're actually implying that I'm a liar, then I have nothing to say to you. If you're not, then I'd like to point out that either the Me-109's seat is higher than the Spitfire's, or the Spitfire also has a room problem. I know that United States fighters had absolutely no room problem. I could fit at least three people my size in the cockpit of the P-47, whereas I couldn't even take a large cat in with me in the 109.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
If you're actually implying that I'm a liar, then I have nothing to say to you. If you're not, then I'd like to point out that either the Me-109's seat is higher than the Spitfire's, or the Spitfire also has a room problem. I know that United States fighters had absolutely no room problem. I could fit at least three people my size in the cockpit of the P-47, whereas I couldn't even take a large cat in with me in the 109.
All the comments ive heard from former RAF spitfire pilots, both in books and interviews all agree. The Bf-109 is INCREDIBLY cramped for space, both in height and width. An interesting difference, is that the whole cockpit, not just the seat is higher, meaning your legs are exntended almost directly in front of you to the rudder pedals, as if you were sitting on the ground. This helped keep the blood near your head, and gave Bf-109 pilots a noticably better 'G' tolerance.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Sure Meyer, what ever you say
? all I said was that the fuel tank in the 109 was bigger, and as it carried more fuel, it has to, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Meyer
? all I said was that the fuel tank in the 109 was bigger, and as it carried more fuel, it has to, don't you think?
Did it carry more fuel, or was the Daimler-Benz just more efficient?
-
Both I think. Anyway internal fuel capacity was similar, only 14 liters of difference in favor of the 109.
But, IIRC, the Spit carried the 85 impgallons of fuel in 2 tanks, so the fuel tank in the 109 was a lot bigger :)
-
Spitfire had 85 gallons. Me-109 had 105 gallons. I believe all production models during the war had the same amounts. For comparison, P-38G had 300 and P-38L had 420. Numbers are not exact.
-
Oh, and by the way, in that diagram above, that G-G looks NOTHING like the front of a Bf-109 cockpit. Its too... funny-shaped. Looks like a merge between a spitfire and a Bf-109. (Yes, im talking about JUST the black line, I KNOW the red one is a Spitfire.)
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Spitfire had 85 gallons. Me-109 had 105 gallons. I believe all production models during the war had the same amounts. For comparison, P-38G had 300 and P-38L had 420. Numbers are not exact.
109 tank carried 400l, about 88 impgallons.
And you are mixing up us gallons with imperial gallons, they are not the same.
Us gallon: 3.785411784 litres
Imp gallon: 4.54609 litres
To make it easier, in litres:
Spit (85 impgal): 386l
109: 400l
P-38G (300 usgal) 1135l
P-38L (420 usgal) 1589l
It's worth to mention that the P-38, as a two engine fighter, needed more fuel, and also the Allison had worse consumption figures than the DB601/5, so the difference in time of flight in internal fuel between a P38G and a 109 is not that big as one might expect.
To put it in numbers, in climb power, the 38G could go for about 107 minutes, and 64 minutes for a 109F-4. Still a big difference though.
Edit: those of course are hypothetical figures, engines couldn't run that longer in climb power without risking failure
-
Hmm, you seem to be right. Typical American that I am, I had no idea that there was a considerable difference between American gallons and British. The Me-109 carried 105 U.S. gallons. I guess that means that the Spitfire carried somewhere about 100, right? I'll go calculate.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
It's worth to mention that the P-38, as a two engine fighter, needed more fuel, and also the Allison had worse consumption figures than the DB601/5, so the difference in time of flight in internal fuel between a P38G and a 109 is not that big as one might expect.
To put it in numbers, in climb power, the 38G could go for about 107 minutes, and 64 minutes for a 109F-4. Still a big difference though.
Ooops I made a HUGE mistake. Was reading the P38 manual and i took the 165gallons/hour figure for military power as the consumption for BOTh engines.. but actually was for just one.
So, thing is that in internal fuel the 38G colud fly for 54 min (military power, again theorically, it is a 15min rating according to the manual)
Assuming the same figures in military power for the 38L (don't know if that's the case), it would last 67min.
The 109G-1/2/4/5/6 in steig-kampfleistung (climb-combat, 30min rating) could fly 60min.
Not bad at all for the little 109...but of course the 38 could take two 300 usgallons external tanks and it would be a different story...
-
I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz. In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences). I'm just not buying that.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz. In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences). I'm just not buying that.
Its German. It wouldnt surprise me. Keep in mind, they started that war without enough fuel to finish it, and they knew it. Im sure they developed their technology to be as fuel efficient as possible in attempt to avoid the fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them all.
-
Sorry Meyer, was a long day and mis-read your post. :o
-
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/kuvat/WW2History-anttijoensuu_1.jpg)
Even this pilot was able to fly the Bf109G-6 ;) (even though he here poses with a Fiat)
Surely 109:s had a more cramped cockpit than e.g. many Ami planes. The Formula 1 cars also have more cramped cockpits than limousines.
I suppose it all depends pretty much on what the pilot gets used to. Both may have their own good and bad points. E.g. a large and spacy plane can feel like something you ride in, a cramped one may feel like something you "wear".
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and by the way, in that diagram above, that G-G looks NOTHING like the front of a Bf-109 cockpit. Its too... funny-shaped. Looks like a merge between a spitfire and a Bf-109. (Yes, im talking about JUST the black line, I KNOW the red one is a Spitfire.)
Hi,
thats just in FRONT of the canophy and it display pretty exact what it looks like.
btw, thanks for that link!
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
thats just in FRONT of the canophy and it display pretty exact what it looks like.
btw, thanks for that link!
Greetings,
Knegel
Notice all those curves at the top??? That looks nothing like the front of any Bf-109 canopy ive ever seen...
-
Well this was effectively Hijacked.
-
By the way, i have Finnish relatives, they are optomistic. And small. But mostly optomistic.
-
Edit: so thats why they said it had room.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz. In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences). I'm just not buying that.
No, it wouldn't have to be twice as efficient. It was more efficient, just not that much.
What you need to compare that are the specific fuel consumption , which is, as the wiki would put it:
Specific fuel consumption, often shortened to SFC, is an engineering term that is used to describe the fuel efficiency of an engine design with respect to a mechanical output.
Now, in that example that I used, the Allison was giving 1425HP, DB-601E (109F-4) 1200ps, and the DB-605A (109G) 1310ps.
The SFC of the DB is well known, it was about 220 g/ps h on rich mixture settings, that is good for the Db601 and for the 605 as well (so, Serenity, that didn't come as a result of shortages of fuel during the war). I can post a few scans if you want.
Just did a fast calculation based on the numbers in the P-38 manual, and I got 318 g/hp h for the Allison V1710-89/91.
That would be 44% worse sfc for the american engine.
Allison V1710-85, 333 g/ ps h. From the P-39Q-1 manual. Since this plane only carried 87 us gallons, at 138gallons/h (military power again), this is really low endurance.
As we can see, the 109 wasn't as bad people think in this regard.. it is interesnting to see that a Spit I had 17% more fuel consumption in climb power, than the 109E at wep!
Now, if Göring would grant Galland's "desire" (I know that only said that to upset the Reichsmarschall, don't jump on me :) ) to equip his JG with Spitfires, I really can't see how that would improve the escort of the Bombers :)
-
P-38 has two Allisons. Me-109 has one Daimler-Benz. If the P-38G has 300 gallons, and M-109 has 88, then the P-38G has 3.4 times more fuel than the Me-109. Divide that by two, to get the correct amount of fuel per engine, and the P-38G has 1.7 times more fuel per engine than the Me-109. In order for the Me-109 to have more flight time than the P-38G, then, the Daimler-Benz would have to be over 1.7 times more fuel-efficient than the P-38G (not counting drag differences). Until you can come up with a reliable source that shows that the Daimler-Benz was that much more efficient than the Allison, I'm not believing it.
By the way, the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning is wrong in several aspects, so I'll assume that either your calculations or the manual are at fault here.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Its German. It wouldnt surprise me. Keep in mind, they started that war without enough fuel to finish it, and they knew it. Im sure they developed their technology to be as fuel efficient as possible in attempt to avoid the fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them all.
The "fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them" was caused by Allied firebombing, the most famous example of which is probably Ploiesti, Romania.
-
(http://img11.potato.com/loc886/th_24845_2007-06-09_134135_122_886lo.jpg) (http://img11.potato.com/img.php?image=24845_2007-06-09_134135_122_886lo.jpg)
(http://img16.potato.com/loc630/th_24851_2007-06-09_134311_122_630lo.jpg) (http://img16.potato.com/img.php?image=24851_2007-06-09_134311_122_630lo.jpg)
(http://img165.potato.com/loc523/th_25711_2007-06-09_182021_122_523lo.jpg) (http://img165.potato.com/img.php?image=25711_2007-06-09_182021_122_523lo.jpg)
(http://img175.potato.com/loc531/th_25622_2007-06-09_181606_122_531lo.jpg) (http://img175.potato.com/img.php?image=25622_2007-06-09_181606_122_531lo.jpg)
(http://img183.potato.com/loc462/th_24867_2007-06-09_182606_122_462lo.jpg) (http://img183.potato.com/img.php?image=24867_2007-06-09_182606_122_462lo.jpg)
Good enough? And what is wrong with the P-38 manual?
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Me-109 has one Daimler-Benz.
I believe the correct designation is Bf 109, capital 'B', lower case 'f' and no hyphen.
The 'Me' designation applied to aircraft designed after Messerschmitt was formed and applies to such aircraft as the Me 163 and Me 262 for example.
As the 109 was designed before the Messerschmitt company was named so, it retained the 'Bf' designation.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The "fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them" was caused by Allied firebombing, the most famous example of which is probably Ploiesti, Romania.
The fuel shortage was actually there even without allied bombings. Initially Germans got oil from countries they conquered and the summer campaigns did not consume as much fuel as winter campaigns. Their supplies even increased in (due to) the French campaign. Romania was able to supply oil to Germany before Barbarossa, even Russians sold oil to Germany before that.
Op Barbarossa ended the Russian trade and made Romania need more of their own oil. Germany also had to deliver oil to its allies, especially to Italy. Hitler had dreamed of capturing oil fields at Caucasus already during 1941. Their war machine was doomed when they did not succeed in it even in 1942. They increased the production of synthetic fuel in manifold, but never even close to required level.
Surely the Allied bombing helped the fuel shortage but it hardly was the main cause ;)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
The fuel shortage was actually there even without allied bombings. Initially Germans got oil from countries they conquered and the summer campaigns did not consume as much fuel as winter campaigns. Their supplies even increased in (due to) the French campaign. Romania was able to supply oil to Germany before Barbarossa, even Russians sold oil to Germany before that.
Op Barbarossa ended the Russian trade and made Romania need more of their own oil. Germany also had to deliver oil to its allies, especially to Italy. Hitler had dreamed of capturing oil fields at Caucasus already during 1941. Their war machine was doomed when they did not succeed in it even in 1942. They increased the production of synthetic fuel in manifold, but never even close to required level.
Surely the Allied bombing helped the fuel shortage but it hardly was the main cause ;)
^ What he said.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
I believe the correct designation is Bf 109, capital 'B', lower case 'f' and no hyphen.
The 'Me' designation applied to aircraft designed after Messerschmitt was formed and applies to such aircraft as the Me 163 and Me 262 for example.
As the 109 was designed before the Messerschmitt company was named so, it retained the 'Bf' designation.
Both terms are technically correct, as both numbers were stamped on the dataplates of Me-109s of various models, blocks, and manufacturers. At at rate, Me-109 is a lot closer to being "correct," as it was the one universally used by the Allies and usually used by the Luftwaffe as well (pronounced by them as "may hunderneun").
-
Err, that's "may hundertneun" (I just caught the typo, and it's too late to edit).
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Notice all those curves at the top??? That looks nothing like the front of any Bf-109 canopy ive ever seen...
As i saied, its NOT the canophy, its the cowling in front of the canopy, at the lower end of the frontwindow. Every 109 frontwindow is curved at the bottom, caused by a curved cowling.
btw, Benny thats "Me hundertneun", "May" isnt a german word.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
I know. But in the United States, "me" is pronounced "mee" as in "we." In Germany, it's pronounced "may" as in "day." Germans called the 109 "Me Hundertneun," but to an American it would sound like "May Hundertneun." However, the Allies pronounced it neither "may" nor "mee," but spelled out the two letters, "emm ee one oh nine." There the "ee" sounds like "we."
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Both terms are technically correct, as both numbers were stamped on the dataplates of Me-109s of various models, blocks, and manufacturers. At at rate, Me-109 is a lot closer to being "correct," as it was the one universally used by the Allies and usually used by the Luftwaffe as well (pronounced by them as "may hunderneun").
I should think that what the allies had to say about it means nothing.
According to what I've read in the past, the way I described is the official way of classifying the aircraft. It seems to fit with Luftwaffe naming convention, given aircraft companies and the designators for their aircraft. Ju 87, He 111 etc etc. The Me-109 seems to be a misinformed 'history channel' assumption.
In any case all official documentation I've seen designates the 109 as the Bf 109 and not Me-109.
At this stage, the only possible way I can conceive of 'Me-109' being 'more correct' is if you're taking a purely allied defination of the aircraft, which seems to me be far from correct.
-
Hi,
there are a few german documents that use the therm Me 109, this are mainly 109G documents, but most documents(also the Handbooks) use Bf 109 only.
Since "Bf" or "Bayrische Flugzeugwerke" is not as easy to speak like Me or Messerschmitt and cause Messerschmitt also sounds better, also the germans mainly used Me 109, when they was talking about the Bf 109.
All over its not very important if Bf or Me!
Greetings,
Knegel
-
This is too confusing lol.
How come planes like Me 210/410, 163, and 262 did not use the Bf designation...:noid
-
Originally posted by 1K3
This is too confusing lol.
How come planes like Me 210/410, 163, and 262 did not use the Bf designation...:noid
Because the were designed after the Bayrische Flugzeugwerke (hence Bf) became the Messerschmitt AG (=Me) in 1938
-
You're also forgetting that often "Me" was on the dataplate of the aircraft itself instead of "Bf." At any rate, quite aside from the Allied use of the term "Me," the Luftwaffe also used it. I don't care what the simulator-geek jargon is, I'll continue to use the term that the real pilots—on both sides—used.
-
Hahaha simulator geek jargon?
It's the official designation and I was simply informing you of this.
Do whatever you like with this information, it makes no difference to me.
-
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) was the company that designed (among other aircraft) the Bf 109. Willy Messerschmitt was BFW's chief designer at that time. However in 1938 the company was officially renamed to Messerschmitt AG. Aircraft designed after the name change got the Me designation. And just like we don't call the Pony a Boeing P-51 just because Boeing now owns what's left of North American, we don't call the Bf 109 by the Me designation given to later designs.
Btw. Benny, the Germans don’t pronounce Me as “may”, but more like “meh” with a long “eh”. Here’s Airmess pronouncing a few common German aircraft names: Clicky! (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1181507414_movie.wmv)
-
"Bf" switched to "Me" in 1938.
But the early war planes such as "Bf" 109E-4 and "Bf" 110C came out in 1939. Shouldn't these planes be designated as "Me" 109, 110, etc?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
"Bf" switched to "Me" in 1938.
But the early war planes such as "Bf" 109E-4 and "Bf" 110C came out in 1939. Shouldn't these planes be designated as "Me" 109, 110, etc?
what was BF anyway,
FW=fokewolf (or however you spell it)
Me=Messersmitt (or however you spell that)
-
Originally posted by Spikey
what was BF anyway,
explained several times in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
explained several times in this thread.
Yeah, I didn't feel like reading, but now I know.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
"Bf" switched to "Me" in 1938.
But the early war planes such as "Bf" 109E-4 and "Bf" 110C came out in 1939. Shouldn't these planes be designated as "Me" 109, 110, etc?
The basic design was 1st ofered by BF before 1938, thats the important factor.
-
If you read the original document, I believe it points out that Bf was retained by the Luftwaffe for the 109 and 110 because they had already become famous for that name, and because they were designed before the goverment-forced company name-change. And as such, I will always call the Messerschmitt 109 the Bf-109.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
...I will always call the Messerschmitt 109 the Bf-109.
There's no dash in Bf 109 you heretic!!! ;)
-
If you'll recall me pointing out, official Luftwaffe publications used "Me" as well, as did German pilots. Frankly, the fact that the Allied term was "Me" is enough for me to use it, technically correct or not. However, I have all the more reason to use it as well since both are technically correct. Ignore me if you wish, we've posted enough information that any interested party should be able to make his own decision. Good day.
-
Wait, I can't resist pointing this out. This is from the original article, the one you Me-109 lovers are all raving about.
Various myths
It's not Me 109, it is Bf 109, you dork!
Both are correct for the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. Both the factory and the Luftwaffe used both designations throughout the life of the 109. Both Bf 109 and Me 109 appear in "official" documents from a variety of 'official sources, from the production facilities themselves to internal RLM docs. It is wrong to say that 'Me 109' is incorrect or that Bf was terminated during construction of the 108-109-series fighter. These alternative designations didn't stop at the Gustav; many Augsburg documents from the last months of the war still used the Bf prefix. For simplicity, this article usually refers to the plane as Me 109.
-
In the early thirties the designation "Me" was used by F.X. Mehr (small manufacturer who made light planes), before his factory joined to the another manufacturer. Basicly the designation "Me" was used by competing manufacturer at the time Bf 109 was designed.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Frankly, the fact that the Allied term was "Me" is enough for me to use it, technically correct or not.
Actually I have the cover-sheet blueprint of the US reverse-engineering of the 109E framed and lighted on my wall. The designation used by the USAAF on this document was Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4.
-
... And in just about every other document, "Me." Again, I've said enough. Good day.
-
Good day to you too sir.
-
As Bf is as well correct, I will always continue saying it.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
As Bf is as well correct, I will always continue saying it.
As well you should, :aok
(this comes from Wikipedia. I usually do not like that site, but I am at my cubicle at work and do not have acess to any of my books right now, though it looks pretty accurate.)
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works), also known as BFW, was formed in 1926 in Augsburg, Bavaria. Willy Messerschmitt joined the company in 1927 as chief designer and engineer, and formed a design team. He promoted a concept he called "light weight construction" in which many typically separate load-bearing parts were merged into a single reinforced firewall, thereby saving weight and improving performance. The first true test of the concept was in the Bf 108 Taifun sports-plane, which would soon be setting all sorts of records. Based on this performance the company was invited to submit a design for the Luftwaffe's 1935 fighter contest, winning it with the Bf 109, based on the same construction methods.
From this point on Messerschmitt became a favourite of the Nazi party, as much for his designs as his political abilities and the factory location in southern Germany away from the "clumping" of aviation firms on the northern coast. BFW was reconstituted as Messerschmitt AG on July 11, 1938, with Willy Messerschmitt as chairman and managing director. The renaming of BFW resulted in the company's RLM designation changing from Bf to Me. Existing types, such as the Bf 109 and 110, retained their earlier designation in official documents, although sometimes the newer designations were used as well. In practise, all BFW/Messerschmitt aircraft from 108 to 163 (not the same plane as the Me 163) were prefixed Bf, all later types with Me.
Messerschmitt AG, later Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) was a famous German aircraft manufacturer, known primarily for its World War II fighter aircraft, notably the Bf 109 and Me 262. The company survived in the post-war era, undergoing a number of mergers and changing its name from Messerschmitt before being bought by DASA in 1989, now part of EADS.
:D
So, the 109s and 110s most certianly are Bf...........
Oh and Serenity, nice info on the 109s in your origal post that started this thread :)
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
As well you should, :aok
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works), also known as BFW, was formed in 1926 in Augsburg, Bavaria. Willy Messerschmitt joined the company in 1927 as chief designer and engineer, and formed a design team. He promoted a concept he called "light weight construction" in which many typically separate load-bearing parts were merged into a single reinforced firewall, thereby saving weight and improving performance. The first true test of the concept was in the Bf 108 Taifun sports-plane, which would soon be setting all sorts of records. Based on this performance the company was invited to submit a design for the Luftwaffe's 1935 fighter contest, winning it with the Bf 109, based on the same construction methods.
From this point on Messerschmitt became a favourite of the Nazi party, as much for his designs as his political abilities and the factory location in southern Germany away from the "clumping" of aviation firms on the northern coast. BFW was reconstituted as Messerschmitt AG on July 11, 1938, with Willy Messerschmitt as chairman and managing director. The renaming of BFW resulted in the company's RLM designation changing from Bf to Me. Existing types, such as the Bf 109 and 110, retained their earlier designation in official documents, although sometimes the newer designations were used as well. In practise, all BFW/Messerschmitt aircraft from 108 to 163 (not the same plane as the Me 163) were prefixed Bf, all later types with Me.
Messerschmitt AG, later Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) was a famous German aircraft manufacturer, known primarily for its World War II fighter aircraft, notably the Bf 109 and Me 262. The company survived in the post-war era, undergoing a number of mergers and changing its name from Messerschmitt before being bought by DASA in 1989, now part of EADS.
:D
So, the 109s and 110s most certianly are Bf...........
Oh and Serenity, nice info on the 109s :)
Thanks. I had about 10 articles of similar detail stored on my old computer, but sadly ive lost them all. Im going to try to find my other great article I think you will all enjoy. It devotes and entire section to the Me/Bf argument. Yeah, im in love with the Bf-109, I read anything I can get my hands on about it. In fact, its second only to my love of the B-17(F).
-
I have always been "in love" with the 109 in all its incarnations. I like its earliest air frames used in spain with its clean sleek lines, all the way to its late war variants that were long, lean, and smooth. Not to mention the power that the DB601 - DB605 gave it. I like to go sometimes and look for the engine starts and run-ups on those birds on "youtube" or some other video web site as I also think there is nothing like the sound of one of those inverted V 12Cyl engines.
Nice flying video of the now on static display "Black6" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcENor7X_0)
Aother decent video of a Bf.109 startup takeoff / landing as well as a close up of the DB605 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgYkfq9OVw&mode=related&search=)
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
I have always been "in love" with the 109 in all its incarnations. I like its earliest air frames used in spain with its clean sleek lines, all the way to its late war variants that were long, lean, and smooth. Not to mention the power that the DB601 - DB605 gave it. I like to go sometimes and look for the engine starts and run-ups on those birds on "youtube" or some other video web site as I also think there is nothing like the sound of one of those inverted V 12Cyl engines.
Nice flying video of the now on static display "Black6" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcENor7X_0)
Aother decent video of a Bf.109 startup takeoff / landing as well as a close up of the DB605 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgYkfq9OVw&mode=related&search=)
Yes, that famous scream of the supercharger... a friend of mine was fortunate enough to work on getting one flight-worthy as a mechanic, and will readily tell you the first time he heard that engine start up, it got him 'up' faster than any girl could. Strange man... lol
Personally, The Dora and Emil are my two favorite models.
-
I like the sound that the starter makes as it is being cranked up, as well as the sound of the engine in flight. As to my favorite model, I am inclined to say that would be the the Bf.109F2. I particularly like the one that my favorite ace Adolf Galland flew. :aok
-
Galland cursed at 109F for having peashooter guns.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Galland cursed at 109F for having peashooter guns.
Hence the upgrade to the Mg 151/20 cannon on the F4
-
Galland spoke quite highly of the 109s, his 109F2 had 3x20mm on it. Had the spinner gun as well as one 20mm in each wing like the armament on the 109E only with the upgraded higher muzzle velocity cannons. :aok
-
Hi,
Any pictures of this plane or a other proof of its existence??
Greetings,
Knegel
-
No problem...
(excerpts from Wikipedia.....again I do not llike wiki too much, but I am at work right now so have few options.)
[edit] Frontline service
Just before the outbreak of World War II, Galland was promoted to Hauptmann and took part in 50 ground-attack missions during the Invasion of Poland with 4.(S)/LG 2[3] equipped with the Henschel Hs 123, a "bi-plane Stuka", from 1 September 1939 onwards. He was transferred to the fighter unit Jagdgeschwader 27 in February 1940, as Adjudant. On 12 May 1940, near Liege, Galland scored his first aerial victory. By the end of the French campaign he had 14 victories. On 1 August Galland became the third fighter pilot to receive the Ritterkreuz.
Adolf Galland describes a dogfight to fellow pilots. (U.S. Air Force photo)From June 1940 on, Galland flew as a Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26, fighting the Battle of Britain flying Messerschmitt Bf 109 "Emils" from bases in the Pas de Calais. In July, Galland was promoted to major. By mid August, Luftwaffe commander Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's dissatisfaction with the performance of the fighter arm led him to replace several of his pre-war Jagdgeschwader Commanders with the current wave of younger high-achievers.[4] Thus on 22 August Galland replaced Major Gotthard Handrick and became Geschwaderkommodore of JG 26. A month later, on 25 September, Galland was awarded the Eichenlaub to the Ritterkreuz for 40 kills.
By the end of 1940, he had 58 victories. Promoted to Oberstleutnant, Galland continued to lead JG 26 through 1941 against the RAF fighter sweeps across Northern Europe. In early 1941 most of the fighter units of the Luftwaffe were sent east to the Eastern Front, or south to the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, thus leaving JG 26 and Jagdgeschwader 2 Richthofen as the sole single-engine fighter Geschwadern in France.
By this time JG 26 were starting to re-equip with the new Bf 109F, normally equipped with a 15mm (or later a 20mm) cannon firing through the propeller hub and two cowl mounted 7,9mm MG17. Galland felt the model was grossly under-armed and so tested a series of 109 "specials;" one with a unique armament of a MG 151/20 cannon and two cowl mounted 12.7mm MG 131 machine guns, and another with integral wing mounted 20mm MG-FF cannons.