The enigma of the Bf-109

[Angus]

So, let's skip Humble while he reads up shall we?

Anyway, since this thread has been half-way hijacked into BoB and Spits and god know's what, I'll start a BoB-Spit-109-Dunkirk whatever thread elsewhere, so this may carry on uninterrupted

[DiabloTX]

It was never my intention to have a flame war (again) using the 109.  All I was trying to do was illustrate my admiration for an airplane that seemingly had so little to offer in terms of improvement from it's initial form.

May this thread die in peace.

[humble]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Humble you really have a shown a great deal of simple factual ignorance in your last few posts especially about simple and obvious things such as the orgin of the P51 or the Hs129..  But hey if it doesnt have be true if it matches your preset views...

Then I must mention your amazing contradictions like prasing the P47 and P38 for their "seamless transition" to ground attack while deriding the Fw190F as some half hearyted attempt at ground support as evdience of US superioroty in ground support ideology..  

Sigh....

The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.

Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.

As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).

Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by humble
Sigh....

The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.

Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.

As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).

Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)

You really are that ignorant, and for a moment I thought you were just kidding...





to thpose brave rumanian pilots in the LW! Especially that poor guy who had to fly LW marked Hs129 in north africa in the second pic...  Of course now you will say these were the only 2 or 3 HS129 in LW service or some such desperate nonsense...



As for the 190F  there are tons more ord options for it that are not in AH. Then there was also the G series light bombers with yet more options.  You really have no clue. And your bias is ridiculus, you praise high alt interceptors/fighters like P47 for their adaptability to attack ground targets as evidence of US support ideolgy while yoiu deride the Me110 for doing the same thing, eing adaptable from escort/intercept to ground attackl as evidence of poor LW ideolgy.  And then of course there were the Me210/410  built with ground attack as a possible mission from the start. Or the Ju88 with its emphasis on divebombing as many LW bombers had from the design stage. Why, because dive bombing was useful for precision strikes ahead of the ionfantry.  Or even the whole blitzkried doctorine which demanded cooperation of air and land arms as one of the main iideas and so on and so on...

You are just plain ignorant and biased  and it's really showing...

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by humble
Sigh....

The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.

Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.

As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).

Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)

OMFG, humble.

The Romanians received between 200 and 250 Hs 129s out of the production of ~1160.

Here is a cheap ($$$) book you should buy to increase your knowledge on the Hs129. In it are the W.Nr. Lots of pics of German Hs 129s and what units.



More bs humble.

On April 16, 1942 , the Army finally ordered 500 NA-97s. The NA-97 was a ground attack version and was designated A-36A. Serial numbers were 42-83663/84162.

GRUNHERZ, has already answered on the Fw190F.

Keep digging humble, that hole you are digging is getting deeper.

Doing well?  You just blew any credibility that you had with the bs, considering it is basic info, in your last 2 posts.

[Angus]

The engines were French right?
And flight performance something in the neighbourhood of a brick?
Durability good, ordnance and firepower EVIL, mostly used on the eastern front, such as KURSK.

Now, can we get back to 109 stuff

[GScholz]

Yes the engines were French. The Hs129 was kind of like a cross between a Beaufighter and an Il-2.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by HoHun

If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Indeed it wouldn`t give them any advantage, in fact it would only make the situation worser. 1940 Spits lacked a LOT of things that contributed to the 109s success over europe . They didn`t have the altitude performance. They didn`t have working cannons.  They didn`t have any pilot armor.  They didn`t have a single lever engine control. Many still flew with two pitch propellors. Roll rate was absolutely horrible at speed, quick dives an impossibility because of R-R couldn`t design a negative G carburrator, even in 1943 it was a problem.. what is probably even more important from tactical factors, the Merlin consumed more fuel and the Spit`s tank was slightly smaller, unarmored, and as it initially designed as even self sealing, it was more prone to damage even after s-s tanks were introduced. The placement of the fuel tank was rather awkward imho, pretty good chance of making the pilot soaking wet of fuel if it was holed.. range wasn`t any better than the Emil, while endurance even worser. Funny that if you swap the two fighters, the british would benefit, they would have the 109 which HAD the thing they missed the most in `40 : effective cannon armament to take down bombers.

[Angus]

Cough, Izzy.

The LW lost almost 1700 aircraft in the space of 4 odd months, there from some 1200 aircraft to the RAF pilots, in 99% cases or so armed only with .303.
Those were the scores, but on to performance.
They lacked altitude performance to the DB at the time, that is correct, and that was the case untill 1942 or so.
Roll rate was absolutely horrible at top speeds for both the 109 and the Spitfire, with little to choose between, - however the Hurricane rolled nicely.
BTW, the horrible 8 seconds often quoted occurs well over the Spitfires max speed, where the 109 is also pretty much stuck.
Now on to the bunt. My great uncle was flapping around with a neg-G carburettor in 1941, so I do not know where you have your 1943 figure from. Anyway, bunting is an evasive maneuver and was used with some success by the 109 pilots since turning and rolling didn't get them out.
But don't bunt at too high speed, for -3G could be the max. And, - while gaining distance, altitude will be lost.
Then on to the fuel tank. The Spit I and the Hurry BTW had more than one, I presume you refer to the header tank, which IMHO is a rather bad thing. So I agree.
Same with cannons, I agree.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Indeed it wouldn`t give them any advantage, in fact it would only make the situation worser. 1940 Spits lacked a LOT of things that contributed to the 109s success over europe . They didn`t have the altitude performance. They didn`t have working cannons.  They didn`t have any pilot armor.  They didn`t have a single lever engine control. Many still flew with two pitch propellors. Roll rate was absolutely horrible at speed, quick dives an impossibility because of R-R couldn`t design a negative G carburrator, even in 1943 it was a problem.. what is probably even more important from tactical factors, the Merlin consumed more fuel and the Spit`s tank was slightly smaller, unarmored, and as it initially designed as even self sealing, it was more prone to damage even after s-s tanks were introduced. The placement of the fuel tank was rather awkward imho, pretty good chance of making the pilot soaking wet of fuel if it was holed.. range wasn`t any better than the Emil, while endurance even worser. Funny that if you swap the two fighters, the british would benefit, they would have the 109 which HAD the thing they missed the most in `40 : effective cannon armament to take down bombers.

You read to much Goebbels.

[MiloMorai]

LOL, Barbi complains about the myths of the 109, yet he has his own myths about the Spit.

The BoB Spits had 70lbs of armour in front and behind the pilot. Most 109s shot down examined during BoB were devoid of armour protection.

What he also forgets that a mixture lever allows the pilot to lean down the mixture and thus increase the a/c's range. With the 109, not possible.

Spit/109 facts

service ceiling: 37,400'/35,200'
operational ceiling: 34,000'/31,900'
time to OC: 21'33"/21'23"
time to 30kft: 15'42"/17'12"
time to 25kft: 11'33"/11'39"

Speed
@ SL equal
@5kft equal
@15kft Spit +4mph
@ 20kft Spit +8mph
@ 25kft Spit +12mph

The Spit had the capability of mounting 30gal wing tanks from 21--5-40 (#233).

[Angus]

Your Spit figures are from what Spitfire and from what 109?
I have studied this rather much, and come to the conclusions that the 109 was generally in a given timeframe SLIGHTLY faster, while the Spitfire was better off in climb and turn, as well as making high G turns and banking climb MUCH better.
Now, Izzy is always focused on the 109's range, again it seems to be really similar while range in time seems to favour the Spit.
(Various anecdotes as well as drop-tankless operation radius).
When it comes to high alt performance, one must bear in mind that a BoB Spit was not just one sort, there were all things from 2 bladed props on 87 oct running engines up to 100 octs and a CS prop, and there were many 109 categories in the air also.
The best of the BoB Spits should be able to outperform the bulk of the 109's, the Spit II's also at high alt.
The sorriest Spits get the other end if you see what I mean.

Hehe, the killer of BoB could have been the Hurry IIC had it been there in time. Quad Hizooka is something else than them riflebullets. But, the guns were apparently not reliable enough.

[Crumpp]

What he also forgets that a mixture lever allows the pilot to lean down the mixture and thus increase the a/c's range. With the 109, not possible.

I am sure you are all aware that both the 109 and the 190 had full manual control of all normal engine functions.

The difference is the 109 had the standard VDM automatic propeller control system linked to a manifold pressure regulator.  It was set on the ground and did not adjust for realtime conditions.  At "x" manifold pressure the prop would adjust to "y" rpm.  

This same system was a subcomponent of the 190's Kommandogerat which integrated it into the rest of the engine function along with airspeed and barometric conditions.

Both systems could be switched to full manual control.  However this was not recommended in the Fluzeug-Handbuchs.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Cough, Izzy.

The LW lost almost 1700 aircraft in the space of 4 odd months, there from some 1200 aircraft to the RAF pilots, in 99% cases or so armed only with .303.

[/B]

Hmm, the RAF written down some 1600 fighters if I recall correctly from 'Fighters', which gives some idea about the damage done by cannons - many airframes that could even return to base had to be written off. Otoh, the fact how many planes were lost to damage isn`t as telling as how many could return to base despite full magazines were emptied into them... and there were a LOT. .303s weren`t damaging enough, they couldn`t penetrate pilot/crew armor, effect on the airframe was negligalbe. btw, tony has just posted some numbers on that, a large percentage of rifle caliber rounds 'lost' when just passing through a blenheim`s airframe, w/o hitting any amor... again in 'fighters' there are several examples early in the battle an entire flight of Spitfires firing the entire ammo load into a single Dornier which got away despite of that. Griehl has a photo of a He 111 that was holed by over 1000 (!!) .303s and still returned to base with the crew alive - had to be written off, but still.. there are escaped 109s with 300+ holes from .303s, and Moelders wouldn`t give hell to Hurris in October if Malan had something bigger than just the peashooters.



They lacked altitude performance to the DB at the time, that is correct, and that was the case untill 1942 or so.

yep.


Roll rate was absolutely horrible at top speeds for both the 109 and the Spitfire, with little to choose between, - however the Hurricane rolled nicely. BTW, the horrible 8 seconds often quoted occurs well over the Spitfires max speed, where the 109 is also pretty much stuck.

i am too lazy to look up the report on ring`s site, but it doesn`t give too good scores to the hurri for rolls either. The spits problem was duplex, too high stickforces, and the ailerons ballooning at high speed. the latter was solved after bob, but a recent article of a restored Emil notes that it had some 50% higher roll rate than even the spit5 with metal ailerons. At high speed the peak roll was indeed very much the same, but the spit`s stikforces were more uncomfortable.


Now on to the bunt. My great uncle was flapping around with a neg-G carburettor in 1941, so I do not know where you have your 1943 figure from.

From an 1943 report on the Griffon engined Spit XIIs that still had this problem for some time.

Anyway, bunting is an evasive maneuver and was used with some success by the 109 pilots since turning and rolling didn't get them out.
But don't bunt at too high speed, for -3G could be the max. And, - while gaining distance, altitude will be lost.

The point is that every time a 109 pilot was stupid enough to convinently boom and zoom the hurris, he got another chance just because of this technical fault of the Merlins - a sure kill lost for an RAF pilot.. almost unfair, undeserved advantage.

[Angus]

Oh, Izzy, you still have digestional problems about the outcome of the BoB.
The finest and BTW rather LW friendly figures I have is from loss reports, the LW loses rough 1200 aircraft DIRECTLY to RAF guns with some 500 for BoB related reasons, totalling with 1700 aircraft in a 4 months period.
The RAF BoB related figure goes with about 800.
Scrapping, cannibalizing etc of both sides is NOT included, and LW landing accidents aren't either. (Which is quite a figure)
I can post the breakdown and source. It is from 20 years of work actually!!!
I will then post it in the Dunkirk/BoB thread.
Anyway, I have some stuff about the 109 slats incoming, that's why I looked in.


All the best


Angus