Author Topic: 109's were really that bad?!!!  (Read 2448 times)

Offline TracerX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3230
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2005, 12:07:19 PM »
The 109 was an extremely successfull and capable aircraft.  Some of the benefits of the aircraft are in its ease of maintenance and assembly, things that do not factor into its flying ability, but dramaticlly effects how many you can keep flying at any particular time, which is very important.  What hurt the 109 later in the war on both fronts was that it was massivly outnumbered.  

The 109 was the easiest plane to manufacture, and put in the air, and you could make more of them with the same given strategic materials as you could any other aircraft.  The P-51 was the easiest late war aircraft the US built, and it should have been easily 4-5 times better than a Me 109 for its cost.  The P-47 and P-38's were even more expensive.  It is unfair to compare these aircraft to the 109, but even if you do, it is still extremely well matched against all of the US fighters except for at extreme altitudes.  The US planes owned the upper altitudes over Germany, and that is where they beat the Germans, and the 109's.  

I have done many reinactments in AH of the airwars over Germany, and none of them have been accruate because it would be too lopsided to do one that was completely accurate.  It is suicide to do what the Germans did in the 109's in 1943 & 44.  It is a testament to their skill and abilities of the aircraft to have put up such a determined defensive effort.  Do not dismiss the 109 because of the results of late 1943 & 44.  The US bombing planners were smart, and knew what they had to do to beat the 109's and 190's.  Don't equate the effective use of their aircraft with the ineptude of Germany's aircraft.  It was the only way to beat the Germans.

Offline DaYooper

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2005, 12:21:46 PM »
Mechanic, those "Spitfire" engines were still built in the good ol US of A.

Offline Panzzer

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2890
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2005, 10:24:28 PM »
If you haven't read Galland's "The First And The Last", you should read it.. Tells something about the inefficiency of the German Fighter Arm. Of course it's a bit biased (the 262 wouldn't have made a big difference since they wouldn't have had enough fuel), but it gives a good idea what the "General of Fighters" could do during the war.

edited for spelling.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2005, 10:27:59 PM by Panzzer »
Panzzer - Lentorykmentti 3

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2005, 11:57:52 PM »
The biggest mistake the Germans did was to not let Kurt Tank build Focke Wulfs with Db engines!

Kurt Tank Kurt Tank Kurt Tank yeah!


Actually the 262 was all that was flying towards the end of the war and was the only aircraft making "victories" for the Luftwaffe.

Since A) Jet Fuel was easier to manufacture
B) they were hella fast
C) aces were flying them

See; The Last Year of the Luftwaffe
« Last Edit: March 11, 2005, 11:59:53 PM by Glasses »

Offline ATA

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2005, 01:58:44 AM »
I don't think there were any aces left at the end:confused:

Offline SunTracker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2005, 04:32:48 AM »
People shouldnt discount the Strategic Bombing Campaign.  It totally knocked out German fuel supplies.  At the end of the war, Germany didnt even have enough fuel to train new pilots.  Also, it tied up 3 million troops in the Luftwaffe.

Though the Sherman was a horrible tank, American tank destroyers had a very high kill-to-death ratio, especially the M-18 and M-36.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2005, 12:45:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ATA
I don't think there were any aces left at the end:confused:


Yes there were plenty of German aces that survived the war.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Ecliptik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2005, 01:48:29 PM »
It was logistical and numerical superiority that was the biggest factor in winning the war on the Western Front.  

Thank the guys in the Deuce-and-a-halfs driving the Red Ball Express, who kept the men better supplied, armed, reinforced, and fed than their enemies at all times.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2005, 01:51:18 PM by Ecliptik »

Offline ATA

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2005, 02:31:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes there were plenty of German aces that survived the war.

Ok

Offline SpiveyCH

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 118
      • http://www.chawks.org
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #69 on: March 12, 2005, 04:26:52 PM »
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Bf 109B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K series, S-99 and 199, Ha-1109 and -1112

Orgin: Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, later (1938) renamed Messerschmitt AG: very widely subcontracted throughout German-controlled territory and built under licence by Dornier-Werke, Switzerland, and Hispano-Aviacio'n, Spain (post-war, Avia, Czechoslovakia).
Type: Single-seat fighter (many, fighter bomber).
Engine: (B, C) one 635hp Junkers Jumo 210D inverted-vee-12 liquid cooled: (D) 1,000hp Daimler-Benz DB 600Aa, same layout: (E) 1,100hp DB 601A, 1,200hp DB 601N or 1,300hp DB 601E: (F) DB 601E: (G) 1,475hp DB 605A-1, or other sub-type up to DB 605D rated 1,800hp with MW50 boost: (H1) DB 601E: (K) usually 1,550hp DB 605ASCM/DCM rated 2,000hp with MW50 boost: (S-199) 1,350hp Jumo 211F: (HA-1109) 1,300hp Hispano-Suiza 12Z-89 upright vee-12 or (M1L) 1,400hp R-R Merlin 500-45.
Dimensions: Span (A to E) 32ft 4 1/2in (9-87m): (others) 32ft 6 1/2in (9-92m): length (B, C) 27ft 11in: (D, E, typical) 28ft 4in (8-64m): (F) 29ft 0 1/2in: (G) 29ft 8in (9-04m): (K) 29ft 4in: (HA-1109-M1L) 29ft 11in: height (E) 7ft 5 1/2in (2-28m): (others) 8ft 6in (2-59m).
Weights: Empty (B-1) 3,483lb; (E) 4,189lb (1900kg) to 4,421lb; (F) around 4,330lb; (G) 5,880lb (2666kg) to 6,180lb (2800kg; (K, typical) 6,000lb; maximum loaded (B-1) 4,850lb; (E) 5,523lb (2505kg) to 5,875lb (2666kg); (F-3) 6,054lb; (G) usually 7,496lb (3400kg); (K) usually 7,439lb (3375kg).
Performance: Maximum speed (B-1) 292mph; (D) 323mph; (E) 348-354mph (560-570km/h; (F-3) 390mph; (G) 353 to 428mph (569-690km/h), (K-4) 452mph (729km/h); initial climb (B-1) 2,200ft/min; (E) 3,100 to 3,280ft (1000m)/min; (G) 2,700 to 4,000ft/min; (K-4) 4,823ft (1470m)/min; service ceiling (B-1) 26,575ft; (E) 34,450ft (10,500m) to 35,090ft (11,000m); (F, G) around 38,000ft (11,600m); (K-4) 41,000ft (12,500m); range on internal fuel (all) 365-460 miles (typically, 700km).
Armament: (B) three 7-92mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MG 17 machine guns above engine and firing through propeller hub; (C) four MG 17, two above engine and two in wings, with fifth through propeller hub in C-2; (early E-1) four MG 17, plus four 50kg or one 250kg (551lb) bomb; (later E-1 and most other E) two MG 17 above engine with 1,000 rounds (or two MG 17 with 500 rounds, plus 20mm MG FF firing though propeller hub) and two MG FF in wings, each with 60-round drum; (F-1) two MG 17 and one MG FF; (F-2) two 15mm MG 151 and one MG FF; (F-4) two MG 151, one MG FF and one 20mm MG 151 in fairing under each wing; (G-1) two MG 17 or 13mm MG 131 over engine and one MG 151; (G-6) one 30mm MK 108, two MG 131 above eingine and two MG 151 under wings; (K-4) two MG 151 above engine and one MK 108 or 103; (K-6) two MG 131 above engine, one MK 103 or 108 and two MK 108 under wings; (HA-1109 series) two wing machine guns or 20mm Hispano 404. Many German G and K carried two 210mm rocket tubes under wings or various bomb loads.
History: First flight (Bf 109 V-1) early September 1935; (production B-1) February 1937; (Bf 109E) January 1939; (Bf 109F prototype) July 1940; replacement in production by Bf 109G, May 1942.
Users: Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany (Luftwaffe), Hungary, Italy (ARSI), Japan, Jugoslavia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovak (CB Insurgent), Soviet Union (1940), Spain, Switzerland; (post-war) Czechoslovakia, Israel.

Development: During World War II the general public in the Allied nations at first regarded the Messerschmitt as an inferior weapon compared with the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Only in the fullness of time was it possible to appreciate that the Bf 109 was one of the greatest combat aircraft in history. First flown in 1935, it was a major participant in the Spanish Civil War and a thoroughly proven combat aircraft by the time of Munich (September 1938). Early versions were the Bf 109B, C and D, all of lower power than the definitive 109E. The E was in service in great quantity by the end of August 1939 when the invasioon of Poland began. From then until 1941 it was by far the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe. and it was also supplied in quantity to numerous other countries (which are listed above). During the first year of World War II the "Emil", as the various E sub-types were called, made mincemeat of the many and varied types of fighters against which it was opposed, with the single exception of the Spitfire (which it greatly outnumbered). Its good points were small size, fast and cheap production, high acceleration, fast climb and dive, and good power of manoeuve. Nearly all 109Es were also fitted with two ot three 20mm cannon, with range and striking power greater than a battery of eight rifle-calibre guns. Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing, extremely poor lateral control at high speeds. , and the fact that in combat the slats on the wings often opened in tight turns; while this prevented a stall, it snatched at the ailerons and threw the pilot off his aim. After 1942 the dominant version was the 109G ("Gustav") which made up over 70 per cent of the total received by the Luftwaffe. Though formidably armed and equipped, the vast swarms of "Gustavs" were nothing like such good machines as the lighter E and F, demanding constant pilot attention, constant high power settings, and having landing characteristics described as "malicious". only a few of the extended-span high-altitude H-series were built, but from October 1944 the standard production series was the K with clear-view "Galland hood", revised wooden tail and minor structural changes. After World War II the Czech Avia firm found their Bf 109 plant intact and began building the S-99; running out of DB 605 engines they installed the slow-revving Jumo, producing the S-199 with even worse torgue and swing than the German versions (pilots called it "Mezek" meaning mule), but in 1948 managed to sell some to Israel. The Spanish Hispano Aviacion flew its first licence-built 1109 in March 1945 and in 1953 switched to the Merlin engine to produce the built in Spain, some being tandem-seat trainers. When the last HA-1112 flew out of Seville in late 1956 it closed out 21 years of manufacture ot this classic fighter, during which total output approached 35,000.
SpiveyCH
The 364th C-HAWKS Fighter Group

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
109's were really that bad?!!!
« Reply #70 on: March 13, 2005, 08:50:27 AM »
Quote


Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing, extremely poor lateral control at high speeds. , and the fact that in combat the slats on the wings often opened in tight turns; while this prevented a stall, it snatched at the ailerons and threw the pilot off his aim. ... G ... demanding constant pilot attention, constant high power settings, and having landing characteristics described as "malicious".


Whole bunch of 109 related urban myths packed into one. One can easily see the myths from some British tests / test pilots there, with nifty amount of myths exagattarated into "well known facts".