PDA

View Full Version : When did the 109 become "less that stellar"



Vote_Quimby
04-20-2006, 09:32 AM
During BOB the 109E was on par if not better than its opposition. Was it the F series that began to show the imitations of the 109?

With respect to the theory that the 109 started to degrade in its efficiency on the battlefield, when did the 190 start to surpass the 109 in this field? Was the 190D a better "final version" of the 190 series than the 109K? I realize that the 109 and 190 are completely different in combat, but was wondering what everyone else thought.

Megile_
04-20-2006, 09:56 AM
Just before the Spitfire did

anarchy52
04-20-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Vote_Quimby:
During BOB the 109E was on par if not better than its opposition. Was it the F series that began to show the imitations of the 109?

Actually, F series are considered to be the zenith of Bf-109 development.

109 remained competitive to the very end, but it just couldn't be modded into heavy bomber destroyer. Have in mind that "competitive" doesn't mean "superior".

carguy_
04-20-2006, 10:10 AM
Only a personal opinion based on those planes` history.


Bf109 was obsolete from the start compared to the FW190.The Focke Wulf was better in every way.It was the Gustav that showed new line of thought from LW constructors that was meant to be modernised as far as an old airframe like the 109 could be.

It was the experience though that counted many times.Pilots with like 500combat hours in Bf/Me109 didn`t really feel like learning a new plane from the start since they could manage easily in the 109.Although as the air superiority situation changed through the war on easter/western front I`m pretty sure everyone wanted the Focke just like every allied pilot wanted the P47/Spitfire.

Even though German engineers did still come up with VERY good engines,the 109 bacame heavier,production/fuel quality lessened and the training was limited virtually to learning basic pilotage and procedures.

The 109 met several enemy aircraft which it could do little against through the war.La,Spitfire,Mustang,Thunderbolt flown by well trained pilots were better or equal enemies.

An advanced airframe like Focke Wulf 190 was also considered by those factors.It needed a well trained pilot to do good in combat too.The sheer genius of this project lasted from `41 till the very end of the war.It went through many modifications,did many combat roles and never fell off the competition with allied fighters.


I think it`s needless to say that the Focke Wulf 190 that we have in the game is a mere shadow of the real aircraft.Easily one of the best fighters/fighters-bombers in world war two.

JG52Karaya-X
04-20-2006, 10:13 AM
IMO the point about the Bf109's development is that during the war it's task switched from mainly an airsuperiority fighter to mainly a defensive bomber interceptor.

I guess the G6 can be seen as the first step towards the interceptor as armament became heavier at the expense of aerodynamics and handling.

The peak of the Messerschmitts career as a first rate superiority fighter was probably the G1/2 which was one of the cleanest models in terms of aerodynamics and had a very powerful engine for its size (666km/h at 1,3ata = 1350PS according to russian tests, I don't know even the topspeed for 1,42ata but it must have been near 700km/h!)

Anyway the introduction of the later MW50 boosted DB605A(S[B/C])M and DB/C engines meant quite a leap in performance at all altitudes even with the now greatly increased weight of around 3350-3400kg.

About the Bf109K: After the diversion of production models starting with the G6 the Kurfürst at last again presented a modern, unified variant which was up to the task it had by then been projected for. (together with some late G models like the G10 which could be updated to K-model standards in the field)

Grue_
04-20-2006, 10:14 AM
Hayateace is losing his touch, this thread has been open almost 40 minutes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The 109 during WWII was a bit like the AK-47, crude but deadly if handled properly.

FatBoyHK
04-20-2006, 10:34 AM
as war progress 109s were fitted with bigger guns and bigger engine. Yes, 109 became more powerful, performace-wise, but indeed, all these beef-up were actually adding up a big burden for the out-dated airframe.

Think about modding your car with a merlin. Sure it Will beat everyone to the first corner.

FI-Skipper
04-20-2006, 10:46 AM
I don't think it was ever really as good as claimed.Look at all the theatres it failed in.The only reason it wasn't mauled worse was beacuse at the start of the invasion of Russia the quality of some of the Russian planes was appaling along with the qaulity of the pilots.It was effectively the mondern day Zulu wars again.Fighting Spears with rifles....

The FW190 was superior to the Spitfire MK V but as soon as the MkIX came out it was sheerly outclassed by a better designed aircraft.

Just my opinions anyways...

Skipper

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
I don't think it was ever really as good as claimed.Look at all the theatres it failed in.The only reason it wasn't mauled worse was beacuse at the start of the invasion of Russia the quality of some of the Russian planes was appaling along with the qaulity of the pilots.It was effectively the mondern day Zulu wars again.Fighting Spears with rifles....

The FW190 was superior to the Spitfire MK V but as soon as the MkIX came out it was sheerly outclassed by a better designed aircraft.

Just my opinions anyways...

Skipper

My opinion is that the fw 190 was better than the spitfire. Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

From the enegeneering point of view the fw 190 was clearly better I think.

Sorry for that little of topic

The bf 109 was probably on the top with the F version.

Texan...
04-20-2006, 11:14 AM
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.

Grue_
04-20-2006, 11:30 AM
Would Hartmann have flown a Fw-190 if given the choice?

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-20-2006, 11:38 AM
The 109F was considered the pinnacle of performance-to-weight for the series. The G series was considered by many of the pilots that flew both variants as the start of their decline in superiority.

Of course, that doesn't make them 'bad' but their design limited their effectiveness once the need for stronger armament and bigger engines arose.


TB

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-20-2006, 01:15 PM
In support of Skipper€s post:-

The Bf 109 was an adequate aircraft for 1940. The Nazi victories of 1939 & 1940 were down to superior planning and execution. The Luftwaffe would have done just as well flying any of the modern fighters available at the time. The Luftwaffe€s role in these victories was not to win the war but to support the army. Look what happened when they tried to go it alone. Indeed, it could be argued that the 109 actually cost the Germans victory by committing a sizeable proportion of the German aviation industry (including occupied and coerced manufacturing facilities) to supporting an obsolete aircraft and it€s ever more desperate modifications, when it would have been better served by concentrating on more technologically advanced machines that would have made more of an impression on the Allied bomber offensive.

Just a thought.

Pinker15
04-20-2006, 01:23 PM
Top aces like Hartman allways had choice. He preffered 109 over FW 190. 109 was described by him as precise sword. Fw 190 was for him like heavy axe.

Gibbage1
04-20-2006, 01:27 PM
I would say BoB proved the design to be waining and wanting in the grand scope of the war.

With its rage and limited capability, it was a PURE defensive fighter. You cant win a war on the devensive.

ANY country can make a light short range fighter and have it be highly manuverable. But not everyone can make a heavy long range fighter and still be manuverable and be able to compete with those light kits over the enemy soil.

faustnik
04-20-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Indeed, it could be argued that the 109 actually cost the Germans victory by committing a sizeable proportion of the German aviation industry (including occupied and coerced manufacturing facilities) to supporting an obsolete aircraft and it€s ever more desperate modifications, when it would have been better served by concentrating on more technologically advanced machines that would have made more of an impression on the Allied bomber offensive.

Just a thought.


Yeah, but, what advanced machine? The Fw190A series was a great low and mid-level fighter but, at Allied bomber heights it was loosing horsepower fast. At least the DBs had good high altitude performance.

Manuel29
04-20-2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
My opinion is that the fw 190 was better than the spitfire. Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

From the enegeneering point of view the fw 190 was clearly better I think.


The engine was the real problem of 190 when SpitIX came in service. FW190 could fight at low-medium altitudes... above the Merlin ruled.

I've just read "The Big Show" and I like when P.C. was climbing chased by some FW, waiting for the altitude where compressor turned on: only in that moment he thought "I'm safe".

BerkshireHunt
04-20-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
ANY country can make a light short range fighter and have it be highly manuverable. But not everyone can make a heavy long range fighter and still be manuverable and be able to compete with those light kits over the enemy soil.

Actually, ANY country that employs a German (Schmued) or Georgian (Kartveli) aircraft designer can do that...
(When you gonna burn those stars and stripes underpants Gibbage?)

BerkshireHunt
04-20-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
I don't think it was ever really as good as claimed.Look at all the theatres it failed in.The only reason it wasn't mauled worse was beacuse at the start of the invasion of Russia the quality of some of the Russian planes was appaling along with the qaulity of the pilots.It was effectively the mondern day Zulu wars again.Fighting Spears with rifles....

The FW190 was superior to the Spitfire MK V but as soon as the MkIX came out it was sheerly outclassed by a better designed aircraft.

Just my opinions anyways...

Skipper

My opinion is that the fw 190 was better than the spitfire. Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

From the enegeneering point of view the fw 190 was clearly better I think.

Sorry for that little of topic

The bf 109 was probably on the top with the F version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the late 190Ds used only a cheap and cheerful method of charge cooling ie injection of a chemical (MW50) into the fuel air mixture to increase its density and allow higher boost pressures. Unfortunately, the limited MW50 tank size meant that after only 15 mins of operation your chemical ran out - and suddenly your fire breathing monster lost its speed and became a lamb to the slaughter (same in late P47s). Not so in a Spit IX or XIV (or P51), which employed full-time mechanical intercooling from take off to landing. A heat exchanger was used to cool the charge entering the engine's cylinders in order to increase the density and allow higher boost pressures - with the great advantage that this ability never 'ran out'. It was akin to running an engine with MW50 injection all the time.
That, with respect, is a rather more noteworthy technical advantage than automated cockpit controls.

hop2002
04-20-2006, 02:11 PM
Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

Early Spitfires had one lever for throttle, another for engine rpm. Later ones had an interconnected throttle and rpm lever, automatic mixture, auto radiator, auto supercharger. It was, essentially, single lever control (push the throttle forward for more power, backwards for less).

There were overrides to give more economy in cruise, but in combat it was just a case of push the throttle forward.

FI-Skipper
04-20-2006, 02:21 PM
I think it would have been far better to phase the 109 out when the 190 came in.190 was clearly the better plane and for a time held the advantage over the Spitfire more than the 109 ever did-this in my view causes me to believe that the 109 as a tactical fighter failed.It was good a taking down aircraft years older than it but when it came up against modern fighters like the Spitfire such advantges were lost.

If they had phased the 109 out around 1943...they could have put the resources into developing more effective and advanced jet planes.Imagine if towards the end of 1944 the Jerries had had 1000's of 262's.The 8th airforce would have been decimated and surely the war would have stalemated for years and probably even seen Germany take back territory.A scary thought really...

Skipper

luftluuver
04-20-2006, 02:22 PM
There was the 190C that was to use the DB603 engine that would have increased the 190s fighting altitude. MTT got the engines for the 410.

The 190As used C3 injection that was better than MW50 injection which did not add weight and drag like the intercooled Allied designs.

LilHorse
04-20-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LilHorse
04-20-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would say BoB proved the design to be waining and wanting in the grand scope of the war.

With its rage and limited capability, it was a PURE defensive fighter. You cant win a war on the devensive.

ANY country can make a light short range fighter and have it be highly manuverable. But not everyone can make a heavy long range fighter and still be manuverable and be able to compete with those light kits over the enemy soil.

I can't see how you could characterize the 109 as a "pure defensive" fighter. That's just crazy talk. Look at the number of LW fighter pilots who flew 109s and the record of kills they racked up. You don't do that with a pure defensive fighter. The 109 was designed to go on the OFFENSIVE. As was everything in the German military at that time.

As for that last bit...it's just more of "teh P-51 won the war" stuff.

FI-Skipper
04-20-2006, 03:33 PM
Yes but when you look at the opposition they came up against in the early stages of the Russian war....its hardly suprising Hartmann has a score of somehting like 350 kills.If the Russians had been better equipped and trained the German invasion would have been smashed in the early stages-The 109 was simply not good enough in comparison to modern Allied fighters and this is why it failed in offense and defence in most theatres during the war.

Skipper

I_KG100_Prien
04-20-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would say BoB proved the design to be waining and wanting in the grand scope of the war.

With its rage and limited capability, it was a PURE defensive fighter. You cant win a war on the devensive.

ANY country can make a light short range fighter and have it be highly manuverable. But not everyone can make a heavy long range fighter and still be manuverable and be able to compete with those light kits over the enemy soil.

I can't see how you could characterize the 109 as a "pure defensive" fighter. That's just crazy talk. Look at the number of LW fighter pilots who flew 109s and the record of kills they racked up. You don't do that with a pure defensive fighter. The 109 was designed to go on the OFFENSIVE. As was everything in the German military at that time.

As for that last bit...it's just more of "teh P-51 won the war" stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Gibbage ate more of his freedom fries this morning.

The 109 was not designed from the get go as a defensive fighter. Last I checked the Blitzkrieg was an offensive action, and if history serves me, Germany was on the OFFENSIVE for the first few years of the war.

The 109's mission early on didn't require it to have a massive operational range. It's short range as a disadvantage was only brought into the open during the BoB.. and even then, the Spitfire's longer range had nothing to do with anything considering it was fighting over it's home soil at that point in time and range wasn't too much of a factor. Just as much can be said about the 109 once Germany had to switch to the defensive when the war turned.

The American fighters that have become some of the "Symbols of Victory" came to be with the requirement of long range in their design package, because thier operation required it.

I'm an American. I love being an American. I serve America.. However, every time I see this American chest thumping to the point of sheer stupidity I get queazy. Some people seem to be too ignorant to understand that the American contribution to Victory was done largely through superior NUMBERS not EQUIPMENT. (Not that our gear wasn't good, but jesus it wasn't the end all)

And yes, Mr. Freedom Fry eating, chest thumping American Patriot, anyone can produce a heavy long range fighter that still has manuverability if the need for one presents itself...

Kurfurst__
04-20-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Early Spitfires had one lever for throttle, another for engine rpm. Later ones had an interconnected throttle and rpm lever, automatic mixture, auto radiator, auto supercharger. It was, essentially, single lever control (push the throttle forward for more power, backwards for less).

Wishful thinking.

RPM and Boost has optimum, connected values which simply mechanically interconnected throttles such as on _some_ Spitfires, could not provide - all they could do is to prevent innapropiate use of throttle and rpm (when it was available. Early Spitfires had only two-pitch propellers during half of the duration of the BoB, and the propeller was working at poor effiency between climb and maximum speeds). It's not a a single lever control, a wannabe, maybe. Some of the Spitfires had 'interconnected' throttle and RPM, meaning the pilot could grab the two at one time and push them fully forward quickly - at all other positions expect maximum it did not give an optimum rpm/boost combination, neither it was fitted to all planes. In fact even the latest Spitfire Mark manuals note the thing as 'on aircraft with interconnected controls' - ie. a number of planes had it, other did not and had to pay attention during the heat of combat not to underboost or overboost and thus kill the engine.

Not exactly the same as the advanced, true single lever Kommandogeraet on _ALL_ 190 and the single lever, functionally similiar single lever, HOTAS system on the 109. These adjusted the optimum RPM to a given boost, as well as mixture and ignition timing. Reading through the British wartime Air Intelligence reports one can see the envy and the need for such simple system to be implemented in RAF planes, but it never really happened, just like they couldn't implement direct fuel injection. 109s had this from 1939 onwards, 190s from the very time they were out, and was a definiate advantage for their pilots in combat.

Re : MW 50 was available for ca. 30-min use at WEP, and was only used at WEP. In other words, it was by no mean limited in practical use, the fuel would run out at the same time if anyone would be insane enough to run a plane at full power that long. Effiency wise, it was quite a bit better than intercooling imho, since it only worked when it was needed (ie. when the s/c was working at full power at high boost), and did not cause any extra drag unlike the intercooler radiator, which was present at all times, even when unneccesary, and meant extra weight as well. OTOH, MW 50, or the better, watercooling (the two are essentially the same, US R-2800s used it too on the Corsair and 'bolt), through charge cooling provides a plus 4% increase in power even at the same boost, and basically eliminates the rather minimal weight increase from the weight of the booster liquid. All the rest is free. Intercooling otoh requires an extra radiator ducting and thus results in extra drag, the RAE ie. calculated that the Spitfire IX was some 30-40 mph because of the neccesary airframe modifications to allow the two stage Merlins with Intercooling (compared to the Spit I), that it could have been if the same horsepower would have been available without an extra second ducting required by the intercooler. The same reasons (poor built-in effiency) resulted the Germans to drop their own intercooler, two-stage, four speed DB 628 engines: as a bare engine, the power outputs at altitude were very impressive and the powerplant worked well, but if the neccesary modifications to the airframe - that would add drag - were taken into account, the more simply, single stage 605AS and 605D looked faster, better, more simply and efficient. In brief, what may look like great for an engine is not neccesary good when you are talking about complete airframes.

BaronUnderpants
04-20-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In some ways i have to agree with Texan. There is something "wird" about the Bf, i mean, at least spits can have a mean stall and sooner or later runs out of energy in say a climb..unlike Bf wich is rock solid all day long in low speed turns and "elevator" like climbs. Its almost like something is holding the plane upright at all times, no stalls and power up the yazoo.

Not saying its over or undermoddeled...just "wierd"

JZG_Thiem
04-20-2006, 04:08 PM
FI_skipper: maybe you didnt know, but Hartmann didnt score too many kills "early" on the eastern front. In fact he joined the LW and scored his first kills in november 1942!!!!
I dont think the russian A/C were mostly outdated at that time still.

ElAurens
04-20-2006, 04:20 PM
1939

Abbuzze
04-20-2006, 04:32 PM
The only failure of the 109 was the unability to rise the DB605 power from late 1942 to 1944 with a better version of this engine.
(Just imagine that the SpitV would be the best version of the spit till the end of 1943- and the result for her reputation!)

The 109 was designed as a simple plane, which just needed low maintance resources. Changing wings with less problems because gear was attached to the belly. If I remember correct P51 had a maintance crew that was much bigger than the 109.

If the DB605D had be worked in 1942, the opinions about the 109 would be different.
The G14 was nothing more than a G6 with intercooling, while the G6 was nothing more than a G2 with stronger gear and HMG´s. I think the G14 was not a bad plane at low and mid alt vs most US/GB planes, and vice versa it was not that bad at higher als vs Russia planes.

I don´t understand the talk about the airframe of the 109. It was capable to use improved version of the engine till the end of war. Even a two stage engine was bild in the K14. (Not used in combat of course)
Aerodynamic was also not that bad, the SpitfireXIV with the same power was slower at SL and needed 25lb (with 10% more power) to be faster than a K4.
Of course with the G and later version the handling was worse than with earlier versions, but thats the same on IX vs XIV, P51B vs D, razorback P47 vs bubbletop. The only real way was to increas engineperformance with staying at the same weight- La´s for example.


Of course the G6, that was the mainly produced version, shows the smalest advantages against the oponents, later it mainly showed disadvantages, no doubt. But small changes to the engine (MW50 and a bigger charger) and this planes was still a threat to enemy planes.

No doubt that the F was the version with the best overall performance. But the 109 was able to be equiped with modern and strong weapons (MK108) till the end of the war. A compleate different design would perform better with the same engines, but if you keep in mind that the 109 got their first kills in the spain civil war, I think it was a good design.

Tator_Totts
04-20-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In some ways i have to agree with Texan. There is something "wird" about the Bf, i mean, at least spits can have a mean stall and sooner or later runs out of energy in say a climb..unlike Bf wich is rock solid all day long in low speed turns and "elevator" like climbs. Its almost like something is holding the plane upright at all times, no stalls and power up the yazoo.

Not saying its over or undermoddeled...just "wierd" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea like it flies on rails.

AndyHigh
04-20-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Yes but when you look at the opposition they came up against in the early stages of the Russian war....its hardly suprising Hartmann has a score of somehting like 350 kills.If the

I'm sorry but your example is not very good. Hartmann got most of his victories on a period spanning from july '43 to end of the war, against modern allied aircraft with 109. He got his first victory late '42.

Texan...
04-20-2006, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um yeah, I like real Spitfires. If you would bother to ask or want to know, I rarely fly Spitfires online. Mostly P47s, P51s and P38s. Ocassionally I'll take up a Yak3 and watch the 109ers squirm. There is something stinky about the 109s and it ain't just the pilots.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Badsight.
04-20-2006, 05:13 PM
^ contrary to what some posters here are saying ^ , the Emil had limitations that the F series improved on

the Russians considered the G2 the best Me-109 by their test pilots

(please note the gunpods on their captured test plane)

http://www.mudphoto.com/uploads/22a975f584.jpg (http://www.mudphoto.com)

they noted the overall quality of construction as well being of a very high standard

danjama
04-20-2006, 05:13 PM
I think the 109 was a great plane until the wars end. Nothing more to say on my part. Of course the 190 was a great plane too, but there was no reason to pick one over the other. They were both legendery.

Badsight.
04-20-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
There is something stinky about the 109s and it ain't just the pilots. im sure you also "smell" something wrong with every other slat equipped plane in FB

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2006, 05:31 PM
I agree with Abbuzze. The 109 G10 and K4 where probably as good as their ennemys with the more powerfull engine.
I think that the bigger problem was the handling at high speed. Capt. Eric Brown describes the controles as very hard and like frozen at high speed. This was probably the main advantage of the fw 190 over the 109. At slow speeds the 109 was a very good dogfighter.

Look at this: http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

The 109G was better in sustained turn than the spitfire IX if we admit that the chart is correct.
Many people probably think that the 109 was only able to dive and climb, so they think that the bf 109 is overmodeled, but this is not true.

WTE_Galway
04-20-2006, 05:32 PM
remember the emil is a contemporary of the gladiator and the hurricane .. things move ahead quickly in war time

one interesting point is that, airframe aside, the DB seems a far superior engine to the merlin

whenever DB/merlin swaps occurred (hispano 109's for example or the DB powered spitfires and hurricanes) the DB engined version was always judged superior

edgflyer
04-20-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they are both over modelled

VW-IceFire
04-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
I think it would have been far better to phase the 109 out when the 190 came in.190 was clearly the better plane and for a time held the advantage over the Spitfire more than the 109 ever did-this in my view causes me to believe that the 109 as a tactical fighter failed.It was good a taking down aircraft years older than it but when it came up against modern fighters like the Spitfire such advantges were lost.

If they had phased the 109 out around 1943...they could have put the resources into developing more effective and advanced jet planes.Imagine if towards the end of 1944 the Jerries had had 1000's of 262's.The 8th airforce would have been decimated and surely the war would have stalemated for years and probably even seen Germany take back territory.A scary thought really...

Skipper
Trouble with the FW190 is when you take it above 6000m. Its performance starts to decline and it becomes a less than useable fighter at that altitude. The 109 picked up that area where the FW190 could not. I believe, had the FW190 had better altitude performance, the 109 probably would have been scalled back or removed.

Thing is that the Luftwaffe had developments of the Me209/Me309 (and some of the others) and the He100 that were credible as good high altitude fighters but they delayed for far too long.

HellToupee
04-20-2006, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
I don't think it was ever really as good as claimed.Look at all the theatres it failed in.The only reason it wasn't mauled worse was beacuse at the start of the invasion of Russia the quality of some of the Russian planes was appaling along with the qaulity of the pilots.It was effectively the mondern day Zulu wars again.Fighting Spears with rifles....

The FW190 was superior to the Spitfire MK V but as soon as the MkIX came out it was sheerly outclassed by a better designed aircraft.

Just my opinions anyways...

Skipper

My opinion is that the fw 190 was better than the spitfire. Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

From the enegeneering point of view the fw 190 was clearly better I think.

Sorry for that little of topic

The bf 109 was probably on the top with the F version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mixture is automatic in the spitfire. Prop pitch is constant speed you just set the desired rpm and the prop does the rest. Sure 190 had some fancy system but as far as the mk9 goes most things are automatic from the rad to the mixture.

WWMaxGunz
04-20-2006, 05:59 PM
Wow the noise to signal ratio here is unusually high, right up to forums standards!

Some truth, add about the same of disinformation then flood in the misinformation,
both sides now swing yor pardner! Whoooo!

Gee Texan, find out when Hartmann STARTED his career. Not 1941. Not early or mid 1942.
Okay now just for you, you get 3 guesses what part of what year.

109 was a very good fighter used properly for what it was built. Like any basic tool.
Very good for what it was made. Not a Swiss Army Knife. And it was improved with time
to keep that main role, the late G's and the K's were fully capable front line fighters.

Biggest 109 failure during BoB was Goering directive applied when bomber losses became
higher than expected, fighters were constrained to improper tactics. Not saying they
would have cleared the skies of British planes but they sure would have done better.

Only to argue is the role they were built for but really that is why to have other model
planes to fill other roles.

HellToupee
04-20-2006, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Aerodynamic was also not that bad, the SpitfireXIV with the same power was slower at SL and needed 25lb (with 10% more power) to be faster than a K4.


The XIV was also bigger and heavyer, as was the mk9 over the g6.

danjama
04-20-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wow the noise to signal ratio here is unusually high, right up to forums standards!

Some truth, add about the same of disinformation then flood in the misinformation,
both sides now swing yor pardner! Whoooo!

Gee Texan, find out when Hartmann STARTED his career. Not 1941. Not early or mid 1942.
Okay now just for you, you get 3 guesses what part of what year.

109 was a very good fighter used properly for what it was built. Like any basic tool.
Very good for what it was made. Not a Swiss Army Knife. And it was improved with time
to keep that main role, the late G's and the K's were fully capable front line fighters.

Biggest 109 failure during BoB was Goering directive applied when bomber losses became
higher than expected, fighters were constrained to improper tactics. Not saying they
would have cleared the skies of British planes but they sure would have done better.

Only to argue is the role they were built for but really that is why to have other model
planes to fill other roles.

well said.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The only failure of the 109 was the unability to rise the DB605 power from late 1942 to 1944 with a better version of this engine.
(Just imagine that the SpitV would be the best version of the spit till the end of 1943- and the result for her reputation!)

Hmmmm... The Spit V was certainly not the best Spitfire till the end of 1943, but it was certainly the main type of Spitfire Mark in service which the LW would face - they were not terribly driven to increase performance which was quite even with even http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the IX. The G-6 does certainly gets kicked a lot because, technically, its a step-back in performance to the G-2, but people tend to forget that the difference was quite minimal (10-15 kph in speed, and perhaps half a second in sustained turn time), and was well within the production tolerance between individual planes, most pilots hardly noting a difference. OTOH, the G-6 offered things that were probably more important in combat than a few kph of theoretical maximum level speed (it is rather questionable that the -9kph drag loss the infamous HMG bulges came with had any real impact on combat performance), such as better view from the canopy, better radio equipment and, last but not least, the 13mm HMGs were a must-have by 1943, the RCMGs were anachronistic even by 1939 with the advent of aircraft armor, but it took quite long in every airforce to cure that.

Max.Power
04-21-2006, 01:40 AM
From Wikipedia, corroborated by other internet sources (of course this means I don't know, which is why I'm asking)



Hartmann joined the Luftwaffe in 1941 and was deployed to fighter wing JG52 in October 1942, on the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109G. Hartmann shot down his first Soviet plane on 5th November 1942.


Wouldn't he have started his military career when he joined up?

Ugly_Kid
04-21-2006, 03:16 AM
I tend to agree with faustnik - FW (until D or TA) did not reach the point of really replacing 109 for several reasons, one being altitude performance. Second important factor was production costs - I doubt there is another mainstay fighter that came close to ease of production. It was simply irreplaceable.
As for performance 109 stayed pretty much competitive to the very end- there were things that very simply unmatched, i.e. climb. Often it is said that F was the peak, well compapred to Emil it probably was a wast improvement in all accouont - even turn. I still would not say that G series wasn't a succesful upgrade - it certainly strengthened some of the qualities with cost of perhaps turning performance and handling, yet Gustavs were still quite competitive fighters - I don't think you'll find a degrade in relative performance an combat performance. Quite a few aces have Gustav to thank for the most succesful parts of their career.

WOLFMondo
04-21-2006, 03:39 AM
I don't remember the 109 pilots name but there was an interview a few years back posted on this forum by him, he said the F was the best 109 in terms of best flying experiance. I remember the interview as well cause he mentioned the ridiculous 5 bladed prop on the Spitfire XIV several times.

fighter_966
04-21-2006, 04:05 AM
Finns did pretty well with bf109 against russian
planes including some mustangs and p-38s btw so.. not bad for fishy plane .I think in this game has quite good Me 109 .My opinion is that every plane needs bit tweaking ..

luftluuver
04-21-2006, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Finns did pretty well with bf109 against russian
planes including some mustangs and p-38s Russian P-51s and P-38s? How did the Russians get them?

The-Pizza-Man
04-21-2006, 05:05 AM
Not exactly the same as the advanced, true single lever Kommandogeraet on _ALL_ 190 and the single lever, functionally similiar single lever, HOTAS system on the 109. These adjusted the optimum RPM to a given boost, as well as mixture and ignition timing. Reading through the British wartime Air Intelligence reports one can see the envy and the need for such simple system to be implemented in RAF planes, but it never really happened, just like they couldn't implement direct fuel injection. 109s had this from 1939 onwards, 190s from the very time they were out, and was a definiate advantage for their pilots in combat.

This is from the spit IX Pilot's Notes:
"Engine Controls

19. Throttle The throttle lever is gated at the climbing boost position. There is a friction adjuster on the side of the quadrant. The mixture control is automatic and ther eis no pilot's control lever.

20. Propeller control
(i) On early aircraft the speed control lever on the inboard side of the throttle quadrant varies the governed r.p.m. from 3,000 down to 1,800.
(ii) On later aircraft the propeller speed control is inter-connected with the throttle control. The inter-connection is effected by a lever, which is known as the override lever. When this is pulled back to the stop in the quadrant (the AUTOMATIC position) the r.p.m. are controlled by the positioning of the throttle lever. When pushed full forward to the MAX R.P.M. position it overrides the interconnction device and r.p.m. are then governed at approximately 3,000. The override lever can be used in the same way as the conventional propeller speed control lever to enable the pilot to select higher r.p.m. than those given by the interconnection.
It must be remembered that the interconnection is effected only when the override lever is pulled back to the stop in the quadrant; indiscriminate use of the level in any position foward of this stop with increase fuel consumption considerably.
At low altitudes(and a altitudes just above that at which high gear is automatically engaged) the corresponding r.p.m. for a given boost with the override lever set to AUTOMATIC are as follws:

Boost(lb./sq.in.) R.P.M.
Below +3 1,800-1,1850
At +7 2,270-2,370
At +12(at the gate) 2,800-2,900
At +18(throttle fully open) 3,000-3,050

(iii) A friction damping control is fitted on the inboard side of the throttle quadrant.

Sounds pretty automatic to me. Even without the automatic pitch control it's is still pretty bloody easy. Just slide the pitch lever forward before you push the throttle open. That sort of thing would become second nature very quickly.

Two position props were to fitted how many spits? A few hundred max. Constant speed props were standard fair for every model of the spitfire.

There was a fuel injection pump developed for the Merlin, which I'm sure your well aware of. There was just no point using it, the minimal advantages it did provide wouldn't have been worth starting up production.

fighter_966
04-21-2006, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Finns did pretty well with bf109 against russian
planes including some mustangs and p-38s Russian P-51s and P-38s? How did the Russians get them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By murmansk convoys along some Hurricanes and Spits

Kurfurst__
04-21-2006, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
This is from the spit IX Pilot's Notes:

...
...

Sounds pretty automatic to me. Even without the automatic pitch control it's is still pretty bloody easy. Just slide the pitch lever forward before you push the throttle open. That sort of thing would become second nature very quickly.

IIRC that manual comes from 1946 doesn't it? The point I am making is that pretty much all manuals I've seen (most of them available are post-war ones), even the last one the XIV, points to that only some of the planes have interconnected controls. It's fairly obvious that it was not standard fitting during the war, and I am not sure wheter this improvement was not only a post-war thing. Any info when this was introduced and to how many planes?

As for what was appearantly the more common operation (seperate RPM and throttle), of course it wasn't terribly difficult to use, but during combat power had to be increased (RPM up, throttle up) and decreased (throttle down, rpm down) in particular order - it diverted the pilot's attention during combat to some extent. For rookies, it could prove more than they could handle, and appearantly, British (and other) investigators were most impressed with true single lever systems, and wanted it to be copied into their own aircraft.



Two position props were to fitted how many spits? A few hundred max. Constant speed props were standard fair for every model of the spitfire.

Well the Mk II from mid-1940 was the first one to have CS props as factory standard fitting. The first 78 or so Spits had fixed props, subsequent ones were fitted with two-pitch screws with all of it's disadvantages, and it was not until July CS props begun to be retrofitted (they finished the the conversion towards the end of August probably, as there were not enough CS sets to produce all new Spits with CS screws). After that it's true what you say, but not until then. About half of the BoB was fought with two pitch screws.



There was a fuel injection pump developed for the Merlin, which I'm sure your well aware of. There was just no point using it, the minimal advantages it did provide wouldn't have been worth starting up production.

I think they only had developed a carburrator fuel injection pump, and it was not much of an improvement of course over the existing 'controlled fuel leaks'. Direct fuel injection into the cylinders is quite a different animal, and it provides more than just 'minimal advantages' of course - negative G manouvers being one of them, something that got RR a headache until 1942.

luftluuver
04-21-2006, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Finns did pretty well with bf109 against russian
planes including some mustangs and p-38s Russian P-51s and P-38s? How did the Russians get them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By murmansk convoys along some Hurricanes and Spits </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Anothe WW2 myth being perpetuated. The Russians got 10 early model P-51s from the British. They did not see combat.

Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)

P-40 2397

P-47 195

P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)

Hurricane 2952

Spitfire 1331

total: 14982 (own production: 74740)

This by Emmanuel Gustin a noted aviation expert. This number, 14,982, jives with other sources.

fighter_966
04-21-2006, 06:43 AM
Well Ilmari Juutilainen Finnish ace 92 kills saw them above karelian isthmus or so he says in his memoirs....

fighter_966
04-21-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Well Ilmari Juutilainen Finnish ace 92 kills saw them above karelian isthmus or so he says in his memoirs....
Book is called Double fighter knight by APAlI
translated byHeikki Nikunen and Paul Gillcrist whos btw figter pilot of U.S Navy about 6000 flght hours Nikunen is also fighter pilot about
6200 flight hours

fighter_966
04-21-2006, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Well Ilmari Juutilainen Finnish ace 92 kills saw them above karelian isthmus or so he says in his memoirs....
Book is called Double fighter knight by APAlI
translated byHeikki Nikunen and Paul Gillcrist whos btw figter pilot of U.S Navy about 6000 flght hours Nikunen is also fighter pilot about
6200 flight hours </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mustangs and P38 were used by Russian 13.Air Army or Baltic Navy 1547 combat planes total

JG52Karaya-X
04-21-2006, 07:21 AM
P47s, P51s and P38s at least came to Russia via the Shuttle raids during which USAAF heavy bombers would jump between Britain, Italy and Russia. In the course of these raids Hartmann and his Staffel fought against American P51s - He got attacked by 7 of them just after he had shot one down. He managed to pull away slowly from them just to run out of fuel and then bail out. He also describes another incident where his Staffel would come in above a swarm of Mustang protecting a bomber group and below the heavy babies a load of Russian Yak fighters. They dove down on the bombers and Yaks, shot down a few of them and out of the confusion the Russians and Mustangs started fighting against each other.

In the book "Holt Hartmann vom Himmel" (which also describes the above combats) there are a bunch of pages taken out of an aircraft-recognition manual that was in his posession. It lists the P38 with a note from Hartmann saying that he met them in combat (but only a handful)

dadada1
04-21-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
Yes but when you look at the opposition they came up against in the early stages of the Russian war....its hardly suprising Hartmann has a score of somehting like 350 kills.If the Russians had been better equipped and trained the German invasion would have been smashed in the early stages-The 109 was simply not good enough in comparison to modern Allied fighters and this is why it failed in offense and defence in most theatres during the war.

Skipper

It was clearly a good enough fighter for Hartmann to best around 8 P51s and their pilots that are part of his tally. Also Hartmann did'nt start combat flying until 1943, not really the early stages as you suggest. Clearly in the hands of a good pilot the 109 was a deadly combination to come up against. Perhaps the allies were lucky that the Luftwaffe kept an inferior design like the 109 in production for so long! Can you measure the quality of a fighter because of the final outcome? If we use this rational the Sherman tank could be said to be a superior design to the Panther. Just some food for thought.

anasteksi
04-21-2006, 07:52 AM
Hmm if i remember correctly luftwaffe pilots were allmost all "noobs" at last years of WW2. If 109 really was so bad how those "noobs" could down spits which were superior aircraft and which had much better trained pilots? But it happened.. often..

luftluuver
04-21-2006, 08:18 AM
No P-47s made it to Poltava as they did not have the range. They provided escort to Germany only.

fighter_966, you do know that the 109 and P-51 were mis-identified. The P-51 had recognition stripes added to help with the IDing. Besides, the Russians did not like the Merlin and had trouble keeping the Allisons running.

Got an OoB for the 13th Army Airforce?

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
From Wikipedia, corroborated by other internet sources (of course this means I don't know, which is why I'm asking)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Hartmann joined the Luftwaffe in 1941 and was deployed to fighter wing JG52 in October 1942, on the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109G. Hartmann shot down his first Soviet plane on 5th November 1942.


Wouldn't he have started his military career when he joined up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When he joined was only step 1 in counter to the argument of his so-called easy kills in early
East Front war when there were so many easy kills. His first kill was Nov 42, second took
another 3 months... it was a while before he got his stride. End of 42 was not the days when
East Front was a total turkey shoot, fish in a barrel, rack up the kills combat. Before then
the Russians did get the newer planes and while at disadvantage still not as badly. The big
easy scoring for LW was in the first months, over before fall season 1942.

When he joined, was he already fighter pilot trained?

Texan...
04-21-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
There is something stinky about the 109s and it ain't just the pilots. im sure you also "smell" something wrong with every other slat equipped plane in FB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeeees, thank you BS.

Slat equipped jobbies are a little far-fetched in their handling. LaGG 3 was a big offender until some weight was tagged on.

Slickun
04-21-2006, 08:51 PM
Hartmann would do well against anyone or anything. In the action where Hartmann was forced down by P-51's, his staffel was worked over pretty well by the Mustangs.

It is also important to note that Hartmann considered the P-51 superior to his mount at the time..."newer and faster" was how he put it.

From his last interview, published in "WW2" magazine, I believe.

The-Pizza-Man
04-21-2006, 09:48 PM
IIRC that manual comes from 1946 doesn't it? The point I am making is that pretty much all manuals I've seen (most of them available are post-war ones), even the last one the XIV, points to that only some of the planes have interconnected controls. It's fairly obvious that it was not standard fitting during the war, and I am not sure wheter this improvement was not only a post-war thing. Any info when this was introduced and to how many planes?

As for what was appearantly the more common operation (seperate RPM and throttle), of course it wasn't terribly difficult to use, but during combat power had to be increased (RPM up, throttle up) and decreased (throttle down, rpm down) in particular order - it diverted the pilot's attention during combat to some extent. For rookies, it could prove more than they could handle, and appearantly, British (and other) investigators were most impressed with true single lever systems, and wanted it to be copied into their own aircraft.

Yes it is from a 1946 manual. However, it does not indicate small numbers of aircraft fitted with an automatic system, it is simply is early and later aircraft. It does however, imply use during the war, as if it were a post war development it would have most likely been retrofitted rather than a new build piece of equipment.

Using a CSP is dead easy. If the pilot wants to go from cruise power to combat power all he has to do is slide both forward at the same time but with the RPM lever forward of the throttle lever. I also believe it was fairly common that the engine was protected from over boosting for a given RPM. So if you wanted to you could probably just push both forward at the same time with no risk of engine failure.

Once in combat only the throttle lever had to be adjusted in most cases, as max RPM would provide the greatest power available most of the time and there is no risk to the engine by running high RPM and low boost settings.



Well the Mk II from mid-1940 was the first one to have CS props as factory standard fitting. The first 78 or so Spits had fixed props, subsequent ones were fitted with two-pitch screws with all of it's disadvantages, and it was not until July CS props begun to be retrofitted (they finished the the conversion towards the end of August probably, as there were not enough CS sets to produce all new Spits with CS screws). After that it's true what you say, but not until then. About half of the BoB was fought with two pitch screws.


Well the Mk II from mid-1940 was the first one to have CS props as factory standard fitting. The first 78 or so Spits had fixed props, subsequent ones were fitted with two-pitch screws with all of it's disadvantages, and it was not until July CS props begun to be retrofitted (they finished the the conversion towards the end of August probably, as there were not enough CS sets to produce all new Spits with CS screws). After that it's true what you say, but not until then. About half of the BoB was fought with two pitch screws.

The Mk II was the first once to be fitted with with a CSP on the first production aircraft, but the majority of Mk Is were either fitted with a CSP from the factory or fitted with one at some later stage. The De Havilland 2-pitch prop was an interim measure to bridge the gap between fixed and CSP. This was at a time when Bf-109s still had manually controlled variable pitch props, which were quite a lot more difficult to handle than a CSP or a two speed prop.


I think they only had developed a carburrator fuel injection pump, and it was not much of an improvement of course over the existing 'controlled fuel leaks'. Direct fuel injection into the cylinders is quite a different animal, and it provides more than just 'minimal advantages' of course - negative G manouvers being one of them, something that got RR a headache until 1942.

Point conceeded, they never, to my knowledge implemented a direct fuel injection system into the Merlin. However, compared with the time it would have taken to implement a direct fuel injection system into the Merlin it was far more expediant to use a negative G carburator. I have no doubt that given the appropriate motivation a British firm could have developed a direct fuel injection engine. In general British engines stood apart from other countries engines in performance and reliability.

Ratsack
04-21-2006, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I think they only had developed a carburrator fuel injection pump, and it was not much of an improvement of course over the existing 'controlled fuel leaks'. Direct fuel injection into the cylinders is quite a different animal, and it provides more than just 'minimal advantages' of course - negative G manouvers being one of them, something that got RR a headache until 1942.

The mathematician working for RR, Sir Stanley ******, calculated that the cooling effect of the carburetor made a significant contribution to the power of the Merlin motor. I don't have his book in front of me, but I recall that it was on the order of 5-8%. Given the introduction of negative G carburetors in 1941, they decided the extra charge density outweighed the other advantages of direct injection (such as rapid response to throttle movements).

cheers,
Ratsack

GR142-Pipper
04-21-2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In some ways i have to agree with Texan. There is something "wird" about the Bf, i mean, at least spits can have a mean stall and sooner or later runs out of energy in say a climb..unlike Bf wich is rock solid all day long in low speed turns and "elevator" like climbs. Its almost like something is holding the plane upright at all times, no stalls and power up the yazoo.

Not saying its over or undermoddeled...just "wierd" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your description appears to point to the 109s being overmodeled in this game. If so, I would agree with that for the very reasons you cite but I'd also include overmodeled turn performance as well in the case of the G-2.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
04-21-2006, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Your description appears to point to the 109s being overmodeled in this game. If so, I would agree with that for the very reasons you cite but I'd also include overmodeled turn performance as well in the case of the G-2. its not 109's

its slat planes

change the way slats work in this game & you wont have any 109 crybabies

Texan...
04-22-2006, 02:09 AM
Please expound, oh great one of slat knowledge and who until recently said "Ni."

La7_brook
04-22-2006, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In some ways i have to agree with Texan. There is something "wird" about the Bf, i mean, at least spits can have a mean stall and sooner or later runs out of energy in say a climb..unlike Bf wich is rock solid all day long in low speed turns and "elevator" like climbs. Its almost like something is holding the plane upright at all times, no stalls and power up the yazoo.

Not saying its over or undermoddeled...just "wierd" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your description appears to point to the 109s being overmodeled in this game. If so, I would agree with that for the very reasons you cite but I'd also include overmodeled turn performance as well in the case of the G-2.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE> learn new moves , fly plane the way it wants too / have look at your stick settings these may help u fly a little better / these forums are full of guys talking about the planes they never fly them selfs just the ones they get shot down by

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 03:44 AM
Texan , if you want to be knowen as a 109 crybaby then please dont feel alone - there are many

as for the plane itself - its the best at nothing , except maybe best equal at dive break speed . if you cant work out what makes them effective & why its related to the slats & why slats do the same thing for any other plne that has them - dont expect me to explain it

GR142-Pipper
04-22-2006, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
And I think most folks who know this game and a bit about basic physics and aviation will admit that the 109 in this game is just a wee bit overdone. It's subtle and hard to detect whether it's off in horsepower, turning, G forces, handling.....something is fishy with that plane. If some folks would take their blinders off, they could see that it has been tweaked too much.

Shame, since it's such an important a/c to have modeled correctly.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This from the guy with a Spit in his sig. Yeah, I fly 109s. And as I said in the "undermodelled" thread, I've never felt they were over or under.

Now, show me somebody who flies Spits who thinks they're overmodelled and maybe I'll believe 'em. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In some ways i have to agree with Texan. There is something "wird" about the Bf, i mean, at least spits can have a mean stall and sooner or later runs out of energy in say a climb..unlike Bf wich is rock solid all day long in low speed turns and "elevator" like climbs. Its almost like something is holding the plane upright at all times, no stalls and power up the yazoo.

Not saying its over or undermoddeled...just "wierd" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your description appears to point to the 109s being overmodeled in this game. If so, I would agree with that for the very reasons you cite but I'd also include overmodeled turn performance as well in the case of the G-2.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE> learn new moves , fly plane the way it wants too / have look at your stick settings these may help u fly a little better / these forums are full of guys talking about the planes they never fly them selfs just the ones they get shot down by </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I do just fine against 109s but I also recognize when the planes are simply not realistic. The G-2 is one of them and has been for quite a while now.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-22-2006, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Texan , if you want to be knowen as a 109 crybaby then please dont feel alone - there are many

as for the plane itself - its the best at nothing , except maybe best equal at dive break speed . if you cant work out what makes them effective & why its related to the slats & why slats do the same thing for any other plne that has them - dont expect me to explain it Rest easy, Badsight. Given your high "grape" factor, I don't think anyone is going to be seeking you out regarding flying matters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper

Texan...
04-22-2006, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Texan , if you want to be knowen as a 109 crybaby then please dont feel alone - there are many

as for the plane itself - its the best at nothing , except maybe best equal at dive break speed . if you cant work out what makes them effective & why its related to the slats & why slats do the same thing for any other plne that has them - dont expect me to explain it

Ok, so you don't know. You could have just said that in the first place.

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The G-6 does certainly gets kicked a lot because, technically, its a step-back in performance to the G-2

Kurfurst, could you tell us a bit more about the 109G2 vs 109G6 vs 109 G6late in game?

I know the armament difference, and the G2 has the retractable tail wheel, but what is the difference in speed etc? I always seem to do much beter in the 109G2 than any G6.

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Ok, so you don't know. You could have just said that in the first place. im merely ok with you staying in your happy place , where the fault is with the 109 being overmoddeled

its eaiser for the 109 crybabies to be there than face reality

Texan...
04-22-2006, 10:48 PM
You remind me of my mother-in-law. Boy am I glad she's dead.

Nubarus
04-23-2006, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
My opinion is that the fw 190 was better than the spitfire. Spit IX was about as good as fw 190A and spit XIV as good as fw 190 D9, but an important advantage for the 190 was the automatic control of most systems like, mixture, prop pitch... . The pilot was able to consentrate on the fight and not on prop pitch positions and such things.

From the enegeneering point of view the fw 190 was clearly better I think.

Sorry for that little of topic

The bf 109 was probably on the top with the F version.

Eh, the Spitfire IX and XIV also had automatic controls for prop pitch, mixture, supercharger gear and cowlflaps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Bremspropeller
04-23-2006, 04:35 AM
Right, but they're Spitfires and thatswhy they suck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Nubarus
04-23-2006, 04:50 AM
If they suck so bad why are you guys whining about them all the time then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bremspropeller
04-23-2006, 04:54 AM
Absolutely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Nubarus
04-23-2006, 04:58 AM
Fabulous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

CUJO_1970
04-23-2006, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Right, but they're Spitfires and thats why they suck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


Good point!

Vike
04-24-2006, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst, could you tell us a bit more about the 109G2 vs 109G6 vs 109 G6late in game?

I know the armament difference, and the G2 has the retractable tail wheel, but what is the difference in speed etc? I always seem to do much beter in the 109G2 than any G6.

It's normal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The 109G5 then G6 both symbolize the emergency of better armaments in the shortest time.

G5 & G6 appeared when the allied forces used heavily shielded bombers.The MG17 wasn't sufficient anymore against them.

Moreover,the G6 fuselage was reinforced,to make this 109 even stronger to down...But heavier to maneuver.Unfortunately,the extra-weight due to new armament + fuselage shields make the rectractable tailwheel unusable!

So,the tailwheel was left locked down and reinforced with rubber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The G5/6 had been hated by the 109 pilots due to its ugly (but fascinating) look,but the new armaments made them convinced in it.

However,G5 & G6 were penalized in maneuvers by more weight due to armament and shields;

And penalized again in top speed by aerodynamic shortcomings (bubbles over MG131 mechanism + fixed tailwheel).
I think the game is accurate concerning those models (G2/G6)
Although its engine had a little more HP than the G2,the G6 is slower!

Surprisingly,the G6 remains a true 109:
I.e. an excellent BnZ plane,and it is still quite fast in evasive dives!
I adore it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

@+

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 06:28 AM
Wanted to answer this before Xiolablu3, just had to go b4 I could post it...

Basically we have the G-2 early series present here which had (semi-)retractable tailwheels. The G-6 had the fixed enlarged one (it would not fit into the tail), though the bottomline is, that by the time the G-6 appeared in February 1943, the late production runs of G-2s had this large, non-retractable tailwheel as well, either from factory or retrofitted. It cost quite a bit of drag, -12kph at sea level as per an 1944 Mtt summary on Gustav performance. Same goes for the kidney shaped mainwheel bulges on the top of the wing, though I guess the loss was minimal with those.

Which makes the only diffo between a (historic) G-2 and G-6 of early 1943 the HMG bulges on the G-6 - they got a bad reputation for the G-6, but in fact they only caused -9kph speed loss - and a new radio (already appeared on the G-4, which only differed in radio from the G-2). BTW on the HMG bulges, Mtt had the 109K proto up in 1943, which had more finely streamlined cowling for the MG 131 with about 1/3 the drag, I wonder why they did not put it on the G-6, but perhaps uninterrupted production was more important. Same goes for the main wheel wells, in fact these were intended for the 109G, but apart from a few examples, few planes got it.. if Mtt adds these, and Daimler-Benz does not have troubles with the DB 605's lubrication in 1942, they would have a 685-700 kph 109G for them - in 1942...! Without those, only GM-1 boosted planes would reach such speeds, and the G-2 (early) was good for 650-665kph, the late one around 640-650, the ealry G-6 630, the late G-6 (after the engine was cleared for 1.42ata in automn 1943) 640-650.

The G-6 was also a bit heavier, but not much : the G-2 weighted 3037 kg on take-off, the G-6/trop datasheet I have (a bit needs to be substracted for tropical equipment), 3143 kg, about 100 kg difference which is not too much, which may also came from the new VHF FuG 16 radio on the G-6. imho the whole G-2 vs. G-6 difference in performance was quite insignificant in real life, given that the production quality differences between indidividual planes, 10-15 kph slower speed, perhaps 1m/sec worser climb and 0.5-1sec in turn time, on the same engine output.Historically, the 109G's DB 605A-1 engine was also cleared for higher ratings at around October 1943O ( available for the G-2s still around, too), which probably made up for a bit of extra weight and drag.Better communications and usable firepower (already in 1939 rifle calbier MGs were rather limited effectiveness against armored a/c) meant more for the combat potential.

Altogether, it can be said the Gustav performance was quite stable stable between mid-1942 and the end of 1943, and on the plus side of the simple modifications, they were available in large numbers, while the oppositon was still flying on older types most of the time, even if newer models were available at the same time, they did not get widespread as fast as the Gustav - for example the main opponent remained the MkV Spitfire until the end of 1943. Quantity translating to quality in this case.

As for the G-6 late, it only seems to add the Erla canopy and armor glass back plate, the tall tail for better stability (altogether these probably reduced drag somewhat, and they do in the game) which was introduced during the Summer-Automn of 1943, along with the MK 108. Lots of smaller gimnicks, radio guidance, rocket kits, etc. were introduced for the G-6 during 1943 as well.

BTW, there's a Mike Spick book on "Luftwaffe fighter aces" or something like this title, tin it Hartmann has a qoute on his impression on the Gustav, does anybody has it handy to copy it here? The local edition's translator was quite a s*cker here... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-24-2006, 06:45 AM
btw it was also possible , and very common, to have this glass head armour ("Galland" Panzer) without the Erla canopy.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 07:12 AM
Yes, this was how it appeared first, ie. the old "caged" canopy but with rear armor glass. The Erla canopy was more of a nice touch compared to the importance of introduced the Galland panzer in mid-1943 in terms of visibilty. The problem with rear view was not the canopy or the cocpit dimensions itself (it extended quite deep to the rear, and thus had the potential), which was actually quite good to the rear by all accounts until the big rear headplate was installed - even though it provided good protection from side/upwards angles as well, this price had to be paid. Frankly, as long as there is a wingman with two extra eyes, I would prefer a thick, wide steel plate behind me precious skull instead of a skinny one... WW2 air combat was not about lone wolves as in a DF server.

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 08:17 AM
To answer the original posters question the Bf 109 ceased to become stellar as soon as the Fw 190 A2 reared its beautifully robust radial engined head.

danjama
04-24-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Right, but they're Spitfires and thatswhy they suck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Careful, i bite http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

joeap
04-24-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Frankly, as long as there is a wingman with two extra eyes, I would prefer a thick, wide steel plate behind me precious skull instead of a skinny one... WW2 air combat was not about lone wolves as in a DF server.
QFT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thanks to you Kurfurst and Vike for the info.

Xiolablu3
04-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Kurfurst and Vike, thanks for your replies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Would you guys say that you should always take the 109G2 over the 109G6/G6late for general fighter vs fighter/fighter bomber in the game? (seeing as you arent likely to meet b17s/Lancasters)

(Saying this, I rarely get to fly these planes online any more, red always seem down on pilots in maps with 109G2/109G6 these days.)

LilHorse
04-24-2006, 10:59 AM
The in-game 109s (at least the ones I fly, early to mid which includes the G2) aren't in any way overmodelled. The G2 is "pretty good" and that's about it. They are about right. Not uber, not dogs. If they were toned down from what they are now not only would the game be unplayable on blue but it would be a-historical.

It has always been the case, for me, that after mostly flying these planes and then jumping into a Spit (heck, even a Hurri 2C) that kills come much, much easier.

I'm not saying that the Spits or Hurris are overmodelled but the 109s certainly aren't.

danjama
04-24-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
The in-game 109s (at least the ones I fly, early to mid which includes the G2) aren't in any way overmodelled. The G2 is "pretty good" and that's about it. They are about right. Not uber, not dogs. If they were toned down from what they are now not only would the game be unplayable on blue but it would be a-historical.

It has always been the case, for me, that after mostly flying these planes and then jumping into a Spit (heck, even a Hurri 2C) that kills come much, much easier.

I'm not saying that the Spits or Hurris are overmodelled but the 109s certainly aren't.

disagree with most of this post.

LilHorse
04-24-2006, 11:21 AM
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

GR142_Astro
04-24-2006, 12:00 PM
Comments like the G2 is "pretty good" are pretty telling. Go find some folks online who know how to exploit the mis-modeling of this a/c and come back with a report.

<S>

Xiolablu3
04-24-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:

It has always been the case, for me, that after mostly flying these planes and then jumping into a Spit (heck, even a Hurri 2C) that kills come much, much easier.



Disagree, I would rather be in a 109G/109F than any in game Spitfire MkV. Hurri 2C is simply outclassed by the 109 in performance, only its powerful guns give it a real chance.

In a 109F/G vs Spitfire V you can dictate the fight and disengage at will. You have to make a mistake or be unlucky to get hit. PLus you still have very good turning ability, not as good as the Spit, but very close.

danjama
04-24-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

Funny how you only pay attention to the picture....is this a sign of your intellectual level?

thought so....

StellarRat
04-24-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
I can't see how you could characterize the 109 as a "pure defensive" fighter. That's just crazy talk. Look at the number of LW fighter pilots who flew 109s and the record of kills they racked up. You don't do that with a pure defensive fighter. The 109 was designed to go on the OFFENSIVE. As was everything in the German military at that time.

As for that last bit...it's just more of "teh P-51 won the war" stuff.

Well, it certainly wasn't designed to carry out any escort duties for strategic bombing and it couldn't carry much of a bomb load for CAS. The range was so limited that it could only support ground units from forward bases. I mean, really, it could barely get across the Channel. Later in the war it was all defense against the American/British bombers. I'd have to say that it was a defensive fighter whether by design or circumstance that's how it ended up.

The design was pretty much outdated by the time the war started. Remember this was a mid-30s fighter.

When I'm flying online I don't feel very threatened by them if I'm in a 1944 Allied plane. They just don't perform at altitude.

WOLFMondo
04-24-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:

It has always been the case, for me, that after mostly flying these planes and then jumping into a Spit (heck, even a Hurri 2C) that kills come much, much easier.



Disagree, I would rather be in a 109G/109F than any in game Spitfire MkV. Hurri 2C is simply outclassed by the 109 in performance, only its powerful guns give it a real chance.

In a 109F/G vs Spitfire V you can dictate the fight and disengage at will. You have to make a mistake or be unlucky to get hit. PLus you still have very good turning ability, not as good as the Spit, but very close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree, in this sim, in 1941, the top dog is the BF109F, nothing comes close to it, the Spitfire VB is a horrible plane to fly and fight in, little ammo, wing guns widely spaced, no aileron trim, rubbish endurance, bad in a dive, very slow. By 1942 though the FW190 appears and the second and final nail in the coffin of the 109 was secure...the first nail being the RAF. :P

LilHorse
04-24-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

Funny how you only pay attention to the picture....is this a sign of your intellectual level?

thought so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, you guys sure do get sensitive over this stuff. Maybe I should have included a winking smily so that your rapier wit could figure out that I WAS JUST BUSTING!!!!

Next time I'll draw a diagram to your sense of humor. Then we'll see how you do with pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

danjama
04-24-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

Funny how you only pay attention to the picture....is this a sign of your intellectual level?

thought so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, you guys sure do get sensitive over this stuff. Maybe I should have included a winking smily so that your rapier wit could figure out that I WAS JUST BUSTING!!!!

Next time I'll draw a diagram to your sense of humor. Then we'll see how you do with pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, thats what the smilies are for. If your joking should i detect this through telepathy?!

LilHorse
04-24-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
I can't see how you could characterize the 109 as a "pure defensive" fighter. That's just crazy talk. Look at the number of LW fighter pilots who flew 109s and the record of kills they racked up. You don't do that with a pure defensive fighter. The 109 was designed to go on the OFFENSIVE. As was everything in the German military at that time.

As for that last bit...it's just more of "teh P-51 won the war" stuff.

Well, it certainly wasn't designed to carry out any escort duties for strategic bombing and it couldn't carry much of a bomb load for CAS. The range was so limited that it could only support ground units from forward bases. I mean, really, it could barely get across the Channel. Later in the war it was all defense against the American/British bombers. I'd have to say that it was a defensive fighter whether by design or circumstance that's how it ended up.

The design was pretty much outdated by the time the war started. Remember this was a mid-30s fighter.

When I'm flying online I don't feel very threatened by them if I'm in a 1944 Allied plane. They just don't perform at altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So? All that still doesn't make the 109 a "pure defensive" fighter. The Spit was a mid-30's design too. And while it's role as a defensive fighter is well established from the BoB would you really say that's all it was? Of course not.

And as for the modelling well.... like I said, I find it much easier to shoot down 109s in a Spit than the other way around. Can it really be that I'm just a better Spit pilot than I am a 109 pilot? Maybe you guys who say the 109 has the advantage are really better 109 flyers than you are in your Spits. Maybe we should all switch! Wadda ya say? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LilHorse
04-24-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

Funny how you only pay attention to the picture....is this a sign of your intellectual level?

thought so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, you guys sure do get sensitive over this stuff. Maybe I should have included a winking smily so that your rapier wit could figure out that I WAS JUST BUSTING!!!!

Next time I'll draw a diagram to your sense of humor. Then we'll see how you do with pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, thats what the smilies are for. If your joking should i detect this through telepathy?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? You're pretty sensitive otherwise! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Get it? HEE HEE HAA HAA, hehe, snork, eh um, er...aw skip it.

Gibbage1
04-24-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
So? All that still doesn't make the 109 a "pure defensive" fighter. The Spit was a mid-30's design too. And while it's role as a defensive fighter is well established from the BoB would you really say that's all it was? Of course not.


Um, yes. It does. The limited range and limited capabilities made the 109 a defensive fighter from 1939 till 1945. All it could do was shoot down other fighters, and or other bombers. Hell, even in BoB they were useless as an escort and all they had to do was fly the channel from airbases in France! Once the Blitz slowed down and failed, it was nothing but a defensive fighter. In the grand sceem of the war, it was almost useless. Heartman's 400 kills is a drop in the bucket compaired to the hundreds of thousands of aircraft the Allies had. What it did in the war did not even effect a ripple in the Allie's offensive wave. Dont even bother trying to say it "almost" repelled the Allied bomber offensive. It was 190's and German flak that did the most hurt, and the 109's were religated to DEFENDING the 190's.

Again, any nation can build a light aircraft and put a big engine in it. It takes a LOT MORE engineering to make a heavy long range aircraft that can compete with that light aircraft. P-51, P-47, P-38 and even the Spit had much greater range and also range of rolls.

faustnik
04-24-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
109's were religated to DEFENDING the 190's.

That is a myth. The only 190s that had 109 escort were the Sturmstaffel with the armored conversions.

Bf109 units had to attack B17s too. That's why they had to use those gunpods. So, to make the Bf109 an effective B-17 interceptor, you have to weight it down to the point where it was not very effective against escort fighters.

The Fw190 had the armament to deal with bombers and the maneuverability to deal with fighters but, was limited by its poor altitude performance.

So, I don't see the LW as having a really good plane to interecept the escorted raids until the Me262 and Ta series????????????

PraetorHonoris
04-24-2006, 02:49 PM
Just as a note, the operational basis of the flying units of the Luftwaffe was a few Km behind the frontlines, where the army advances together with the operational basis of the Luftwaffe thus ensuring the close interaction between army and air forces in the offense instead of waiting hours for a plane that started 1000Km away, when CAS or so was ordered.
Long range fighters were either for deep penetration of enemy airspace, such as strategic bombing which the Luftwaffe itself did not intend to conduct, or defensive (sic!) operations such as nightfighters conducted, who needed a lot fuel.

In a nutshell, it is true, the Luftwaffe did not intend deep penetration, that does not make it less offensive.

His name is Hartmann and you know. That again shows, what kind of man you are. But keep your slurs away from veterans, especially if they are dead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Slickun
04-24-2006, 02:55 PM
Nice try, but range is an important aspect of a fighters toolkit.

I can hit you, you can't hit me.

I can linger over your airfields, vulch the living **** out of you, you can't do it to me.

No one is safe in your country, not the training planes, not the rear areas, not the front lines. I am everywhere. You ain't.

It allows the plane to take on several roles impossible for the short legged brethern.

Short range limits. Long range enables. This cannot be spun away.

StellarRat
04-24-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
So? All that still doesn't make the 109 a "pure defensive" fighter. The Spit was a mid-30's design too. And while it's role as a defensive fighter is well established from the BoB would you really say that's all it was? Of course not.

And as for the modelling well.... like I said, I find it much easier to shoot down 109s in a Spit than the other way around. Can it really be that I'm just a better Spit pilot than I am a 109 pilot? Maybe you guys who say the 109 has the advantage are really better 109 flyers than you are in your Spits. Maybe we should all switch! Wadda ya say? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I don't fly the 109 because I think it's junk.

BTW, the first 109's went into production in 1936 while first Spitfire's went into production in 1938. So the Spitfire design was only a year old at the beginning of WW II while the 109 was already three years old. By the end of the war the 109 was nearly 10 years old! It amazes me sometimes that the German's flew the 109 and the Me 262 in the same war. Not much consistency.

Slickun
04-24-2006, 02:58 PM
Hartmann was the greatest fighter pilot of all time. He transcends our discussion. He would have been effective in anything, he was that good.

The best pilots in any air force...same thing.

However, not everyone is the best. Not everyone can transcend their equipment. The average slob, needing every advantage possible, in a plane easy to learn on...that is what he needs.

StellarRat
04-24-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Nice try, but range is an important aspect of a fighters toolkit.

I can hit you, you can't hit me.

I can linger over your airfields, vulch the living **** out of you, you can't do it to me.

No one is safe in your country, not the training planes, not the rear areas, not the front lines. I am everywhere. You ain't.

It allows the plane to take on several roles impossible for the short legged brethern.

Short range limits. Long range enables. This cannot be spun away. Every doubling of the range increases the area the enemy needs to defend by a factor of four.

Gibbage1
04-24-2006, 03:03 PM
Having an airfield only a few KM away from the front line is stupid and foolish. Having an airfield out of range of the enemy and within range of your own is the ultimate trump card. How many German air bases were overrun during the war? A GREAT many. How many Allied bases on England were overrun by the Germans? None http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Our fighting forces were safe in England from hurrassment during WWII, but the Germans had to CONSTANTLY deal with attacks on there front line airbases.

The 109 was no longer the premier fighter after 1939. It was still a good aircraft, but useless.

Vike
04-24-2006, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst and Vike, thanks for your replies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Would you guys say that you should always take the 109G2 over the 109G6/G6late for general fighter vs fighter/fighter bomber in the game? (seeing as you arent likely to meet b17s/Lancasters)

I don't think so;
Both are deadly when correctly maneuvered.

But,i must admitt,when in a "pure" fight against fighters like 1942/3 lavochkin/yakolev/spit,the G2 give more chances to its pilot to survive.

Above all,the 109 was an Air Superiority Fighter,and i think this role was partially (if not totally) tone down with the G5/6 versions...at least by considering the way the G6 behaves in our game (almost poor acceleration,rate of climb quite flabby...)

Fortunately,later,the MW50 boost gave it back to its primary role,with polyvalence.
Indeed,the AWESOME 30mm MK108 rate of fire permitted the 109 to take care bombers just as much as fighters...In a nasty way! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

To summarize,i consider the G5/6 as more an anti-bomber plane than an air superiority fighter,contrary to all the other versions of the 109.Simply too slow & flabby to fight with its contemporaries enemies.(still by considering the G6 behaviour in the game)

I dunno if,as Kurfurst said,the G6 was almost as good as the G2 in real life. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

@+

PraetorHonoris
04-24-2006, 03:18 PM
I see, you realize your fault and are not trying to proclaim a defensive character anymore. Whether you arm chair general regard that doctrine as stupid or not, does not affect me very much.
I even agree with you on that point. It was not a premier fighter by the outbreak of the war, outdated by 1941. However it shot down more planes than any other in history, one 109 fighter wing alone (JG 52) achieved twice as much kills as all the fighter wings of the superior (no irony intended) Mustang in the ETO.

danjama
04-24-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
Another guy with a Spit in his sig.

Look, just because you get shot down in your Spit once in a while by a 109 doesn't make it overmodelled.

Funny how you only pay attention to the picture....is this a sign of your intellectual level?

thought so.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, you guys sure do get sensitive over this stuff. Maybe I should have included a winking smily so that your rapier wit could figure out that I WAS JUST BUSTING!!!!

Next time I'll draw a diagram to your sense of humor. Then we'll see how you do with pictures. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, thats what the smilies are for. If your joking should i detect this through telepathy?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? You're pretty sensitive otherwise! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Get it? HEE HEE HAA HAA, hehe, snork, eh um, er...aw skip it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh wow your funny, stick around.

Monty_Thrud
04-24-2006, 03:30 PM
And they were renowned for over claiming

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 03:38 PM
Improvement of Me 109 range through the war.


The original Me 109E had a rather limited range of apprx. 410 miles on economic cruise, on internal fuel capacity of 400 liters, without a droptank. This was not very unlike from other fighters of the era (ie. compare to 395-500 miles qouted for the Spitfire I in the literature).

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/BF109E_MANUAL09.jpg

Droptank was however introduced on the Bf 109E-7, appearing in August 1940, boosting range to apprx. 1000 km.
Range vastly improved with the 109F and later versions.


German datasheet for Me 109F-4 range at moderate cruising speeds (via beim-zeugmeister.de) :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109GvsFrange.jpg

The British intelligence version agrees very well (via beim-zeugmeister.de):

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/UK109F4typesheet2.jpg

Me 109G-2 range :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109grange1.jpg


A later 1945 AI document showing 615 miles maximum range on internal. Take note of the range of other fighters. :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/AI1945_range109G-190A.jpg

The last one showing 615/1015 miles w/o and w. a single droptank. There were less known a 'superrecce', ie. long range armed recon variants employing two 300 droptanks under each wing.

The last major change came with the 109K, which was capable of using it's 115-liter MW-50 tank as rear fuselage tank for apprx. 25% more internal fuel capacity, as well as a droptank. The MW50/kraftstoff switch is present in the in-game cocpit's left btw...


Brief reminder :

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_3.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p47_3.html)
"The P-47C was the next production version of the Thunderbolt. It began to leave the production lines in September of 1942. "

Specs of the P-47C-5-RE:

One Pratt & Whitney R-2800-21 supercharged radial air cooled engine rated at 2000 hp. Curtiss Electric C542S propeller, 12 ft 2 in diameter.
Maximum speed was 433 mph at 30,000 feet, and 353 mph at 5000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be attained in 7.2 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet.
Range at maximum cruise power was 640 miles at 335 mph at 10,000 feet. Range with a 166.5 Imp. gall. drop tank was 1250 miles at 10,000 feet at 231 mph.
Weights were 9900 pounds empty, 13,500 pounds normal loaded, 14,925 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 40 feet 9 5/16 inches, length was 36 feet 1 3/16 inches, height was 14 feet 3 5/16 inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.


In summary, the 109 was not a particularly short ranged aircraft, at around midway. Compared to the first Emil's range, the 109s range nearly tripled in first war years..

In 1942, the 109G's range was similiar to the P-47C's - albeit with the fragment of fuel being carried. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What's more important, the 109s range was perfectly aduquate for the tasks the Luftwaffe would do. The 109s range after the 109F model was quite similiar to the FW 190A's, the disperenacy and the myth of the 'short legged' 109 (at least after the Emil) originates in the fact that most popular books qoute the 109's referring to range at maximum continous output, typically 560 km or so. This however is only true for very high maximum cruising speeds in order of 600-640 km/h. Writers are not to be blamed though, the German LW quartermaster's charts they base it on don't give the max. economy value most of the time, the cell is left empty.

ImpStarDuece
04-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
So? All that still doesn't make the 109 a "pure defensive" fighter. The Spit was a mid-30's design too. And while it's role as a defensive fighter is well established from the BoB would you really say that's all it was? Of course not.


Um, yes. It does. The limited range and limited capabilities made the 109 a defensive fighter from 1939 till 1945. All it could do was shoot down other fighters, and or other bombers. Hell, even in BoB they were useless as an escort and all they had to do was fly the channel from airbases in France! Once the Blitz slowed down and failed, it was nothing but a defensive fighter. In the grand sceem of the war, it was almost useless. Heartman's 400 kills is a drop in the bucket compaired to the hundreds of thousands of aircraft the Allies had. What it did in the war did not even effect a ripple in the Allie's offensive wave. Dont even bother trying to say it "almost" repelled the Allied bomber offensive. It was 190's and German flak that did the most hurt, and the 109's were religated to DEFENDING the 190's.

Again, any nation can build a light aircraft and put a big engine in it. It takes a LOT MORE engineering to make a heavy long range aircraft that can compete with that light aircraft. P-51, P-47, P-38 and even the Spit had much greater range and also range of rolls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, but I was under the impression that the Bf-109 carried out a lot of offensive operations on a lot of different fronts. It also played the role of escort, fighter/bomber, night fighter and command fighter as well as high and low altitude reconnisance. It was also sucessfully converted as a carrier fighter, even if Germnay's aircraft carrier was never finished.

"Once the Blitz slowed down and failed, it was nothing but a defensive fighter." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Gibbage, have you completely forgotten the rest of WW2? North Africa, the Russian front? Ring any bells? How about 109s over Malta? Lots of offensive, attacking operations there, even some long range ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Just because the 109 was employed defensively against the strategic bombing campaign in the ETO, doesn't mean it was a defensive fighter.

Just because something wasn't a long range escort fighter, doesn't make it a purely defensive weapon. As for "limited capacities" and
"it was almost useless", its approaching the point of farce to suggest that just because the 109 had short legs it didn't have a wide and distinguished service career, or wasn't an effective combat aircraft.

All the arguments that you made about the 109 can be equally applied to the P-40, P-39, P-63, Spitfire, Tempest, Hurricane, Fw-190, LaGG-1/3, Mig 1/3, La-5/7, Yak-1/3/7/9, MC 200/202/205 and allmost all the rest of the fighters designed in Europe in the 1930s and early 1940s. Only the USA and Japan ever made truly long range fighters during the war and that was far more a function of their location and philisophy than deliberate

Xiolablu3
04-24-2006, 03:56 PM
The 109 is in the same class of plane as the Spitfire, La5/7, Regaine,FW190, P80, F86, F16,

An air superiority fighter. I dont agree that those type of planes are useless for anything other than defence. But they are great at the job of defence.

109 is one of the classics, it was just adapted after it should have been phased out, thats all. A great fighter for its time and possibly the best in the world when it entered service.

The FW190 was supposed to take over completely, but this couldnt happen for some reason or other, therefore the 109 was upgraded more. The fact that it was still a great plane in its 109G/K form is a testament to the original design.

Wasnt the 109E only having such problems in the BOB purely because no suitable drop tanks had been introduced?

Gibbage1
04-24-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I even agree with you on that point. It was not a premier fighter by the outbreak of the war, outdated by 1941. However it shot down more planes than any other in history, one 109 fighter wing alone (JG 52) achieved twice as much kills as all the fighter wings of the superior (no irony intended) Mustang in the ETO.

It was also the most shot-down fighter of the war. It also killed more of its own pilots due to landing and takeoff accedents then any fighter of the war. Those numbers were acheaved purly from how long it served and the numbers it served it and also the target rich enviornment. Not because the 109 was some super superior aircraft. It was a short range aircraft with a very limited roll in the war. Shooting down another fighter is NOT going to do squat for the war effort.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The FW190 was supposed to take over completely, but this couldnt happen for some reason or other, therefore the 109 was upgraded more... The fact that it was still a great plane in its 109G/K form is a testament to the original design.

This reason was called the Me 262. The plan was to phase the 109 out, and thus let the Messerschmitt works fully concentrating on developing and producing the 262, while the 190s temporarily kept in production, and then phased out as well. But as the 262 was not ready for a while, the 109 was further developed, this led to the 109K which's development started in early 1943.




Wasnt the 109E only having such problems in the BOB purely because no suitable drop tanks had been introduced?

Yes of course, the 109E was pushed to the limit of it's operational endurance during the last phase of the BoB, and this was no part due to the bombers often being late from the randevous over the Channel. Hardly their own single problems as AFAIK the RAF had run into similiar troubles over Dunkirk (home interceptors couldn't stay long over the beach). As for droptanks, the Bf 109E-7 variant introduced just in August 1940, but it was simply impossible to retrofit all 109s in such a short time to be able to carry droptanks, esp. as the 109F production just started during the Battle of Britian.

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 05:12 PM
The operational radius of the 109G was ~135mi which was slightly less than the 190s.

Since Kurfurst left out parts of the report,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange3-1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange4-1.jpg

The max range of the 109E-1,-3 was between 267mi and 413mi depending on the height flown and whether was max economy or max continuous. Max economy is not a relistic speed in a combat zone.

The operational range from the 109E to 109K did not change very much.

The chart Kurfurst posted is not at max ecomomy speed for the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire IX got 6.76mi/gal at econo speed > 85 x 6.76 = 575mi. The data came a data sheet that states that climb was done at 2650rpm @ +4lb or 2850rpm @ +12lb up to 25,000' which is most definately not most economy, this being 1800rpm and 160mph.

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was also the most shot-down fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That is true</span> It also killed more of its own pilots due to landing and takeoff accedents then any fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Got proof?</span>

ColoradoBBQ
04-24-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Having an airfield only a few KM away from the front line is stupid and foolish. Having an airfield out of range of the enemy and within range of your own is the ultimate trump card. How many German air bases were overrun during the war? A GREAT many. How many Allied bases on England were overrun by the Germans? None http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Our fighting forces were safe in England from hurrassment during WWII, but the Germans had to CONSTANTLY deal with attacks on there front line airbases.

The 109 was no longer the premier fighter after 1939. It was still a good aircraft, but useless.

In that same logic, you might say that carriers were a total waste of resources. A big fat target that could easily be sunk and 100 aircrafts sent to the bottom of Davy Jones locker. They try to get as close to the enemy as possible to preserve as much fuel needed for the bombers and fighters to fight with. Rapid deployment to the front line is valuable because you could lose your target within an hour after discovery from recon aircrafts and be able to salvage aircrafts with badly damaged engines and fuel tanks.

By the way, Allied bases were attacked often during the war. We weren't that far out of range.

Jaws2002
04-24-2006, 05:35 PM
Bf-109 was an exceptional design for what it was built. A short range point defense fighter. It was intended for air superiority over the front lines. The whole Luftwaffe doctrine was made around front line. BF-109's were suppose to provide a safe environment for the stukas and medium bombers to operate around and near front line.

They made the smallest airframe and strapped to it the best engine they had.

For the role it was intended it did well through out the war.

But in war you need to do a little more then just CAP over the frontline.

By design the Messer was almost useless as a jabo. It had single very fragile engine, could not carry enough ordnance. It could only carry one 250 kg bomb or four small 50kg bombs. Unsuitable for primitive small frontline airfields.

On major drawback was the small airframe/thin wings. if you wanted more firepower you had to add the bulky gunpods (only in the later models).

As a bomber interceptor it sucked as well. weak firepower (again unless you add the performance killing gunpods), Again fragile engine for the job.

Over Ploiesti the slow IAR-81 did better against the bombers then the 109's in 1944. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The narrow landing gear made it a death trap for newer pilots.

That airframe was made for a short blitzkrieg and not for what WW2 became. A long war where you had to adapt to the always changing mission objective.

The fact that the Germans had some legendary but useless people very important positions made all the difference.

Udet was the Minister for Aircraft Production. He plain sucked in that position. He didn't know squat about industry or what war production required. He wanted all bombers (even the four engine heavy ones) to be able to dive bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif.

Since he loved the 109 and the Zerstorer concept, this got priority and other fighters could not use Daimler-Benz engines not to interfere with 109 and 110/210 production.

That's why Foke Wulf could not use DB engines that had better high alt performance.

After Udet shot himself Albert Speer took over Reich Minister for Production, and had to start producing on large scale, to keep up with the loses at least.It was too late to try to catch up with the US, British or Russian production.

His idea was to produce existing fighters in mass and not do any radical changes that would interfere with production.

This is what kept the 109 in service.

I'd say the 109 should have been replaced in 1942, to make room for newer and better designs. More versatile fighters, capable to fulfill a multitude of roles to meat the requirements of the war effort.

In my opinion saving the DB engines for messerschmitt products sealed the fate of the FW-190 as a high altitude fighter.

By the time they let them use the Daimler-Benz engines it was too late.

faustnik
04-24-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The operational radius of the 109G was ~135mi which was slightly less than the 190s.

Maximum range for the Fw190A8 on internal fuel was 644 miles. With a 300 liter drop tank it was 915 miles.

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The operational radius of the 109G was ~135mi which was slightly less than the 190s.

Maximum range for the Fw190A8 on internal fuel was 644 miles. With a 300 liter drop tank it was 915 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max range and operational radius are not the same. Look at the pics posted.

CUJO_1970
04-24-2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The chart Kurfurst posted is not at max ecomomy speed for the Spitfire IX.



And the chart you posted is not at max economy for the 109, and does not represent the max radius of the aircraft.

Max continuous power...

5 minutes combat power...

As well as ==>20%<== thrown in for "navigational errors" and "other contingencies".

Thanks though.

Nimits
04-25-2006, 01:05 AM
Maximum range for the Fw190A8 on internal fuel was 644 miles. With a 300 liter drop tank it was 915 miles.

Rule of thumb: Divide max range by three or four for operational radius.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The operational radius of the 109G was ~135mi which was slightly less than the 190s.

Read the conditions. Highest powers used all the time, the plane cruising at around 600 kph during the whole operation, spends 5 mins at maximum power, and from the whole range 20% is deducted for safety, not to say the droptank isn't used to the full (given the short distance) either. Not a surprise the range is less when high powers are used continously. It goes for all aircraft, the Mustang did not get a 2000+ mile range when cruising at 400mph either.




Since Kurfurst left out parts of the report,

These are two different reports, the one I posted is from the Middle-East evaluation of the 109G, which basically repeats translated German docs, and was done in February 1943.

The one you posted is a later report about the range capabilities of German hit-and-run Jabo attacks against the British Isles with which they bugged the RAF in mid-1943, and the report is dated 3 months later, in May 1943.

Briefly the two are completely different things, with different standards.


The operational range from the 109E to 109K did not change very much.

I am afraid that ignores practically all documented evidence.


The chart Kurfurst posted is not at max ecomomy speed for the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire IX got 6.76mi/gal at econo speed > 85 x 6.76 = 575mi. The data came a data sheet that states that climb was done at 2650rpm @ +4lb or 2850rpm @ +12lb up to 25,000' which is most definately not most economy, this being 1800rpm and 160mph.

That's the normal way for all such charts, the 109F Flugstreckentabelle work the same way, they both assume climb to altitude at climbing power (at 1h 'Normal' for the Spits and 30-min 'Kampf' for the 109), the distance covered in climb is accounted for and then economic cruise is assumed etc., and allowences are made for warm-up, taxy and 'durchstarten', navigational errors. Nobody climbs at low powers, it takes much longer and it's aint economic either. That's why the Spitfire manual recommends to climb exactly at the settings you claim 'uneconomic' - for economy.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Bf-109 was an exceptional design for what it was built. A short range point defense fighter. It was intended for air superiority over the front lines. The whole Luftwaffe doctrine was made around front line. BF-109's were suppose to provide a safe environment for the stukas and medium bombers to operate around and near front line.

Nope, it never was. In fact it was designed, just like the Spitfire or Hurricane (can't say for French fighters), and in fact the so-called US 'escort fighters', like the P-38, an INTERCEPTOR (in the latter's case range was required because of the long US distances) to shoot down incoming bombers, and could of course operate as an air superiority fighter, but that wasn't the prime intention. Back in the 1930, it was assumed that that monoplane bombers are so fast they can take care of their own (which proved true against biplanes in Spain), and most of the time until BoB German bombers operated unescorted, trusting their speed. The Blenheim, the Soviet SB bombers were of similiar concepts, albeit less successfull.



They made the smallest airframe and strapped to it the best engine they had.

That's the best receipe for performance as it leads to the highest power-to-weight ratio.


By design the Messer was almost useless as a jabo. It had single very fragile engine, could not carry enough ordnance. It could only carry one 250 kg bomb or four small 50kg bombs...

Well, 250kg or 500+ lbs was pretty avarage combat load (limited by ground clearance), more than what Soviet fighers would carry, and about the same what the Spitfire, P-39, Hurri, P-40 and so on would carry. Later the load increased to 500 kg of bombs, and cluster bombs were used with good effect, and subversions of the 109 could carry 1000 kg worth of external load. Sidenote, that puny 250 kg bomb proved enough for just about any target on the battlefield, and it proved more than enough for a Royal Navy cruiser around Crete in 1941, sunk by a 109E Jabo.

What makes the 109 engine 'very fragile', except for sharing an inline's vulnerability for coolant hits?


Unsuitable for primitive small frontline airfields.

Like the ones typical on the Russian front, Norway, Africa...?


On major drawback was the small airframe/thin wings. if you wanted more firepower you had to add the bulky gunpods (only in the later models).

Actually adding gunpods was no worser than just putting them into the wings, it came with about the same weight and drag as two Hissos in the Spit or two Mausers in the 190's wings. Being a small airframe, of course the added weight was more felt than on a heavier designer, but a small airframe had more reserves of performance to start with.


As a bomber interceptor it sucked as well. weak firepower (again unless you add the performance killing gunpods), Again fragile engine for the job.

I am sure many B-17 and B-24 crews would disagree with you, as well as the whole Bomber Command, which went to night raids after a couple of interceptions by 109s.


In my opinion saving the DB engines for messerschmitt products sealed the fate of the FW-190 as a high altitude fighter.

Why would the 1475 HP DB 605 would be better for the FW 190 than the 1800 HP BMW 801?

JG53Frankyboy
04-25-2006, 03:41 AM
DB603 , not 605.
unfortunatly the DB603 was very slow in developement. but a in late 1943 full in service beeing Fw190 with DB603 engine would have been not bad to counter the US bomberoffensive.

but fortunatly these kind of planes werent there !

The-Pizza-Man
04-25-2006, 03:48 AM
The MkVIII had a range between 660 and 740 miles depending on whoes chart you want to believe.

JG53Frankyboy
04-25-2006, 04:06 AM
so far i know the 109 had a standstill in its internal fuel load from the Emil to the Kurfürst - always ~400 litres.

the Fw190 had till the A7 540litres , from the A8 on, they had an additional 115 litres tank behind the cockpit.

the Spitfire IX/VIII/XVI had more and more fuel in its developement- adding tanks behind the cockpit and in the wings........

range was very important, even in the german homedefence 1944/45 . its fighters , 109 and 190, carried most time the droptanks in their interception missions. sure releasing them before going in to the fight, mostly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The MkVIII had a range between 660 and 740 miles depending on whoes chart you want to believe.

The official RAF figure on internal fuel is 660 miles. The 740 miles figure comes from the 'maximum weak mixture cruising power' tests done by the RAAF in 1943. With a 90 gallon drop tank range was given as 1,180 miles by the RAF and 1,265 miles by the RAAF.

The Mk VIII could fly further if necessary, up to 10 air miles per gallon of fuel, but few pilots want to cruise around at 1800 RPM and -2 lbs boost doing around 200mph in a combat zone.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
so far i know the 109 had a standstill in its internal fuel load from the Emil to the Kurfürst - always ~400 litres.

the Fw190 had till the A7 540litres , from the A8 on, they had an additional 115 litres tank behind the cockpit.

The MW 50 109s carried the same 115 liter tank, but only the 109K had the ability to use it as an extra fuel reserve. Because of the different density of MW 50 and fuel (ca3/4), 70-85 liter of MW was filled, but 115 liter fuel, to maintain the same CoG.

The original 400 liter worked pretty fine, given the fact the range was increasing through the war thanks to the inreasing effiency of the powerplants built in. There were in existance some very long range 109s for armed recce work (G-4/R3 for example) using two droptanks under the wings, so if more would be really needed, it could be done fast.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The operational radius of the 109G was ~135mi which was slightly less than the 190s.

Read the conditions. Highest powers used all the time, the plane cruising at around 600 kph during the whole operation, spends 5 mins at maximum power, and from the whole range 20% is deducted for safety, not to say the droptank isn't used to the full (given the short distance) either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Glad you read the conditions for that was a typical mission profile for German fighters in the second half of WW2 where cruising along at most econo cruise in a sky filled with Allied fighters was a death sentence.

carguy_
04-25-2006, 07:07 AM
Me?I rather be in a Spit anytime than in Me109.The aircraft has good speed,great acceleration,nice climb and devastating armament.


Simply nothing comes close to it if you want to perform an online war combat sortie,be it low or high altitude.The V in a direct comparement is worse than a 109F only performance wise.In a coop though it`s both safer and easier to fly a Spitfire.The real strenght of this plane is that with a good pilot,this plane is able to adapt to any combat situation really without a problem.
A close escort?Ok.Low level bomb raid?Sure!Air superiority mission?No problem!

In a 109 you have to watch as the situation develops and react quickly to change it into a situation that suits the 109 or you die.Early 109 have a relatively wide margin of flexibility but from `41 it all goes downhill.The only thing a Spit pilot needs to lookout for is being outnumbered or disadvantaged @ altitude - both factors are easily adjustable by an experienced pilot in a coop.


You DF jockeys just don`t get it.You have no idea how to use the plane depending on a sortie briefing.In online wars players that have Yak1 and LaGGS16 know how to beat a 109F and 109E mix.For the same reason it`s not really too rare to see a squad of SpitIX getting hammered by 109G6early.
For the most time,a well made coop will not feature 1v1 battles,because it is made around a certain goal that influences how enemy acts.

LilHorse
04-25-2006, 09:51 AM
Oh wow your funny, stick around.

You're funny too! You even spell funny.

II_JG1_Falke
04-25-2006, 10:15 AM
When did the 109 become "less that stellar?"

Starting with patch 4.03M.

LilHorse
04-25-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
So? All that still doesn't make the 109 a "pure defensive" fighter. The Spit was a mid-30's design too. And while it's role as a defensive fighter is well established from the BoB would you really say that's all it was? Of course not.


Um, yes. It does. The limited range and limited capabilities made the 109 a defensive fighter from 1939 till 1945. All it could do was shoot down other fighters, and or other bombers. Hell, even in BoB they were useless as an escort and all they had to do was fly the channel from airbases in France! Once the Blitz slowed down and failed, it was nothing but a defensive fighter. In the grand sceem of the war, it was almost useless. Heartman's 400 kills is a drop in the bucket compaired to the hundreds of thousands of aircraft the Allies had. What it did in the war did not even effect a ripple in the Allie's offensive wave. Dont even bother trying to say it "almost" repelled the Allied bomber offensive. It was 190's and German flak that did the most hurt, and the 109's were religated to DEFENDING the 190's.

Again, any nation can build a light aircraft and put a big engine in it. It takes a LOT MORE engineering to make a heavy long range aircraft that can compete with that light aircraft. P-51, P-47, P-38 and even the Spit had much greater range and also range of rolls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to be blurring the lines between intent of design and the role the fighter was forced into due to the circumstances of the war. The 109 was designed to be an offensive weapon. Remember the LW's primary role at the beginning was to support the ground forces. That, by intent, makes it an offensive weapon in an arsenal of offensive weapons as the Wehrmacht was most certainly on the offensive.

Everything you say about the attributes that a fighter needs to contribute to success in an airwar is true. But a fighter's designed intent and the role it plays in that success (or failure) can be two different things.

Just like the P-47 was not originally designed to be a fighter-bomber. The requirement was for an interceptor. It ultimately rolled off the line into the escort fighter role. It was pressed into service as a Jabo where it was remarkably successfull. Intent vs. circumstance.

The 109 had offensive intent, however well or poorly concieved. It ended up having to defend. But that still doesn't make it a "pure defensive" fighter.

horseback
04-25-2006, 11:00 AM
Fighters are by definition 'defensive' aircraft; they are intended to to stop other airplanes from

A. taking pictures of, bombing, torpedoing or strafing ground and surface targets, or

B. killing your reconnaisance, bombers, torpedo and ground attack aircraft.

With few exceptions, interceptors and fighters from the mid-1930s onward were conceived with the expectation that they would face other fighters in combat, and were designed to that end. If anything, the only time thye were expected to perform an offensive function was when they were not needed to defend someone or something; at the end of a bombing mission, if there was no aerial opposition, they might get to strafe enemy positions.

The use of fighters in the ground attack role was more a matter of happenstance than design; the aircraft originally designed for ground attack turned out to be easy meat for enemy fighters and much more vulnerable to groundfire than originally thought, and the smaller and faster fighters were their natural replacements. It was soon recognized that the excess power needed for greater performance allowed a greater payload if hardpoints could be found to hang it from, they were harder to hit and much more capable of self defense after dropping their payloads.

ANY fighter can be adapted for ground attack; it is strictly a matter of adapting a means for it to deliver the desired ordnance.

cheers

hrseback

LilHorse
04-25-2006, 11:53 AM
True, Horseback makes sense (and I'm not just saying that 'cause we both have "horse" in our nicks). Ultimately a fighter's (any fighter's) first role is defensive. Even as part of an offensive package. But what I think is the major difference between Gib and my views is that he feels the 109 was designed to defend territory and not be used as part of an overall offensive scheme.

One need only look into what the LW did on the Eastern Front in the air to see that 109s went up for the purpose of destroying the VVS in the sky as well as supporting bombers and ground attack a/c. Yes, eventually they lost (no kiddin') but that still doesn't mean that it was due to 109 being a mis-used "pure defense" fighter. For that matter that doesn't even apply to the West either.

Vipez-
04-25-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I even agree with you on that point. It was not a premier fighter by the outbreak of the war, outdated by 1941. However it shot down more planes than any other in history, one 109 fighter wing alone (JG 52) achieved twice as much kills as all the fighter wings of the superior (no irony intended) Mustang in the ETO.

It was also the most shot-down fighter of the war. It also killed more of its own pilots due to landing and takeoff accedents then any fighter of the war. Those numbers were acheaved purly from how long it served and the numbers it served it and also the target rich enviornment. Not because the 109 was some super superior aircraft. It was a short range aircraft with a very limited roll in the war. Shooting down another fighter is NOT going to do squat for the war effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh, how do you know it was the most shot down fighter of the war? Compare it to number of IL-2s shotdown (something like 36,163 examples of Sturmoviks built) or Yakolevs (Yak-1, Yak-9, Yak-7, something like +30.000 built). Guess we will never know...

The-Pizza-Man
04-25-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The MkVIII had a range between 660 and 740 miles depending on whoes chart you want to believe.

The official RAF figure on internal fuel is 660 miles. The 740 miles figure comes from the 'maximum weak mixture cruising power' tests done by the RAAF in 1943. With a 90 gallon drop tank range was given as 1,180 miles by the RAF and 1,265 miles by the RAAF.

The Mk VIII could fly further if necessary, up to 10 air miles per gallon of fuel, but few pilots want to cruise around at 1800 RPM and -2 lbs boost doing around 200mph in a combat zone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you got any scans or anything that show 10 MPG. I'd be really interested in getting hold of something like that. You can probably tell, I've had similar discussions on other boards and I'm always looking for new info.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Have you got any scans or anything that show 10 MPG. I'd be really interested in getting hold of something like that. You can probably tell, I've had similar discussions on other boards and I'm always looking for new info. here you go.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spitviiirange.jpg

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Eh, how do you know it was the most shot down fighter of the war? Compare it to number of IL-2s shotdown (something like 36,163 examples of Sturmoviks built) or Yakolevs (Yak-1, Yak-9, Yak-7, something like +30.000 built). Guess we will never know... When did the Il-2 become a fighter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
04-25-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
When did the Il-2 become a fighter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Since 1.0, be sure!

Gibbage1
04-25-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Eh, how do you know it was the most shot down fighter of the war? Compare it to number of IL-2s shotdown (something like 36,163 examples of Sturmoviks built) or Yakolevs (Yak-1, Yak-9, Yak-7, something like +30.000 built). Guess we will never know...

Considering the total number of 109's produced is estimated around 35,000 and not many survived the war....... Im sure a great number of those were lost in ground accedents. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
04-25-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was also the most shot-down fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That is true</span> It also killed more of its own pilots due to landing and takeoff accedents then any fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Got proof?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep!

23.04.40 Bf 109 E Lt. Georg Schirmbock (F) 4. JG 77 12+- Crash during landing
23.04.40 Bf 109 E 5. JG 77 Crash during landing
13.05.40 Bf 109 E Hpt. Reinhard Heydrich (F) WIA Stab JG 77 Yellow 3+- Turnover during take off
03.06.40 Bf 109 E1 5. JG 77 Emergency landing
04.06.40 Bf 109 E Hptm. Heinrich Selinger (F) WIA Stab 186 Accident during landing
16.06.40 Bf 109 E1 II 186 Accident during landing
16.09.40 Bf 109 E4 1593 Ofw. Werner Petermann (F) 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
10.07.40 Bf 109 E4 8. JG 77 Accident during take off
13.09.40 Bf 109 E4 Oblt. Erich Friedrich (F) 5. JG 77 Hit on runaway
16.09.40 Bf 109 E4 1593 Ofw. Werner Petermann (F) 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
26.09.40 Bf 109 E3 833 Uffz. Rudolf Scmidt (F) WIA 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
12.10.40 Bf 109 E1 3309 Uffz. Helmut Frose (F) KIA 5. JG 77 Accident during landing, Killed
24.10.40 Bf 109 E3 820 Uffz. Ludvig Fr¸ba (F) 4. JG 77 White 3+- Accident during landing/Navigation error
27.10.40 Bf 109 E4 1407 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
27.10.40 Bf 109 E1 3590 5. JG 77 Accident during landing

This is just a few months in 1940 in Norway alone. The losses due to landing or takeoff equal or are greater then the losses due to combat.

La7_brook
04-25-2006, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was also the most shot-down fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That is true</span> It also killed more of its own pilots due to landing and takeoff accedents then any fighter of the war. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Got proof?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep!

23.04.40 Bf 109 E Lt. Georg Schirmbock (F) 4. JG 77 12+- Crash during landing
23.04.40 Bf 109 E 5. JG 77 Crash during landing
13.05.40 Bf 109 E Hpt. Reinhard Heydrich (F) WIA Stab JG 77 Yellow 3+- Turnover during take off
03.06.40 Bf 109 E1 5. JG 77 Emergency landing
04.06.40 Bf 109 E Hptm. Heinrich Selinger (F) WIA Stab 186 Accident during landing
16.06.40 Bf 109 E1 II 186 Accident during landing
16.09.40 Bf 109 E4 1593 Ofw. Werner Petermann (F) 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
10.07.40 Bf 109 E4 8. JG 77 Accident during take off
13.09.40 Bf 109 E4 Oblt. Erich Friedrich (F) 5. JG 77 Hit on runaway
16.09.40 Bf 109 E4 1593 Ofw. Werner Petermann (F) 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
26.09.40 Bf 109 E3 833 Uffz. Rudolf Scmidt (F) WIA 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
12.10.40 Bf 109 E1 3309 Uffz. Helmut Frose (F) KIA 5. JG 77 Accident during landing, Killed
24.10.40 Bf 109 E3 820 Uffz. Ludvig Fr¸ba (F) 4. JG 77 White 3+- Accident during landing/Navigation error
27.10.40 Bf 109 E4 1407 5. JG 77 Accident during landing
27.10.40 Bf 109 E1 3590 5. JG 77 Accident during landing

This is just a few months in 1940 in Norway alone. The losses due to landing or takeoff equal or are greater then the losses due to combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> u dont think this had sum thing to do with run ways they were using ??/ as seen the work the yanks did on run ways when they got off on D DAY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BigKahuna_GS
04-26-2006, 12:20 AM
ColoradoBBQ
Rat on a stick over a fire
Posted Mon April 24 2006 16:22
quote:
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Having an airfield only a few KM away from the front line is stupid and foolish. Having an airfield out of range of the enemy and within range of your own is the ultimate trump card. How many German air bases were overrun during the war? A GREAT many. How many Allied bases on England were overrun by the Germans? None Our fighting forces were safe in England from hurrassment during WWII, but the Germans had to CONSTANTLY deal with attacks on there front line airbases.

The 109 was no longer the premier fighter after 1939. It was still a good aircraft, but useless.


COLBBQ--In that same logic, you might say that carriers were a total waste of resources. A big fat target that could easily be sunk and 100 aircrafts sent to the bottom of Davy Jones locker. They try to get as close to the enemy as possible to preserve as much fuel needed for the bombers and fighters to fight with. Rapid deployment to the front line is valuable because you could lose your target within an hour after discovery from recon aircrafts and be able to salvage aircrafts with badly damaged engines and fuel tanks.

By the way, Allied bases were attacked often during the war. We weren't that far out of range.



Totally inaccurate statement. German airbases were a fixed stationary target. A Carrier Task Force was a potent mobile weapons system. The carrier itself replaced the battleship as the most effective naval weapon and force projection. The Carrier Task Force was protected by several defensive layers of Destroyer picket ships, Cruisers and early warning radar. A german airbase a few kilometers away from the front lines would be subjected to sustained attacks from both land and air units. A fight between Carrier Groups could be as far as 200miles+ away. The Carrier Task Force can project it's power anywhere on the globe, a fixed airbase cannot.

_

Gibbage1
04-26-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
u dont think this had sum thing to do with run ways they were using ??/ as seen the work the yanks did on run ways when they got off on D DAY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Note the dates. 1940. Thats well before the "yanks" even entered the war. This is during the prime of the Luftwaffe power, not the ragtag leftovers and greenhorns of 1945!

AndyHigh
04-26-2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is just a few months in 1940 in Norway alone. The losses due to landing or takeoff equal or are greater then the losses due to combat.

And the number of total aircraft & missions in Norway was?? I don't see many KIAs on that list to back up your argument. The severity of accidents is also not mentioned.

Also, many of these accidents may well have been due to damage or wound received by AAA-fire etc.

You propably still believe the old myth that some 11000 109s were lost to landing accidents. In that case you're wrong.

WTE_Galway
04-26-2006, 01:29 AM
the actual figures is just under 5%

and there were 36000 109s

so a bit less than 2,000 were lost in takeoff and landing incidents not 11,000

Kurfurst__
04-26-2006, 01:43 AM
Andyhigh is correct - it's 15 incidents in a SIX MONTH PERIOD, with varying level of all sorts of damage, a single one resulting in death, and three resulting injuries, not even 50% worth, for a unit with the size of JG 77, ie. an established strenght of around 120 aircraft. Not exactly a serial killer of it's pilot's as suggested, it's equally dubious as the 'most shot down fighter of the war'. Sure. Circa 300 000 US fighters were produced - how many remained by 1945? 10 000? 20k? Application of the same stupid logic.

Such statements only reveal massive ignorance, but in the case of Gibbage, it's nothing new since most of the forum, Red or Blue, already treats the posts as one carrying little weight. The fact is that a very large percantage of the losses came from accident, most of these end with simple damages of course, the USAAF's losses for example are made up 20-40% by non-combat related accidents, and they hardly had to deal with harsh conditions. The RAF-FC's casulities in August 1942 were 175 a/c damaged in combat, and 143 in accidents, 360 being completely destroyed in combat, and 48 in accidents.

As for 109 record goes, butch has posted this a while ago :

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3761090943/p/3

butch2k Posted 05-08-23, 12:12
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.

Gibbage1
04-26-2006, 03:08 AM
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/tap40.html

And yes, it does list the damage %. Lots of 70-100%. Some with little damage. These are ALL losses recorded in the time in Norway. As you can see, about HALF of the losses for 109's are due to takeoff or landing crash. Look at the 110's. Very few crashed on landing or takeoff. About 3 our of 19. Then look at 109's. 12 out 24 crashed on landing or takeoff.

Not very good numbers my unfriendly 109 fans. Not very good at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
04-26-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/tap40.html

And yes, it does list the damage %. Lots of 70-100%. Some with little damage. These are ALL losses recorded in the time in Norway. As you can see, about HALF of the losses for 109's are due to takeoff or landing crash. Look at the 110's. Very few crashed on landing or takeoff. About 3 our of 19. Then look at 109's. 12 out 24 crashed on landing or takeoff.

Not very good numbers my unfriendly 109 fans. Not very good at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We know the 109 was to be handle with care at takeoffs and landing, but you cant blame the accidents on the plane really, its obviusly pilot mistakes it comes down to

CUJO_1970
04-26-2006, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Not very good numbers my unfriendly 109 fans. Not very good at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It's 8 airframes written off(over 60% damage is a write-off) during an 8 month period in a combat zone. And that's out of only 15 accidents in the same 8 month period due to t/o and landing accidents.


Now, go show me any fighter group from any nation that didn't lose at least 1 fighter per month in a t/o or landing accident while in combat.

AndyHigh
04-26-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
And yes, it does list the damage %. Lots of 70-100%. Some with little damage. These are ALL losses recorded in the time in Norway. As you can see, about HALF of the losses for 109's are due to takeoff or landing crash. Look at the 110's. Very few crashed on landing or takeoff. About 3 our of 19. Then look at 109's. 12 out 24 crashed on landing or takeoff.


Btw. many shows only minor 5-20% damage.

The list doesn't show the cause of an accident ie. was it battle damage, pilot error or bad weather.

And this is quite pointless unless you provide total number of missions flown with 109s in that combat zone (vs. Bf-110 for example). Only then we could calculate true loss rate per certain number of landings.