PDA

View Full Version : Secrets of the Messerschmitt Me109 Aircraft



Syama
03-13-2005, 04:42 AM
http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

I know you guys will probably rip it apart...But it's kinda interesting. Make sure you watch the pilot interview.

Syama
03-13-2005, 04:42 AM
http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

I know you guys will probably rip it apart...But it's kinda interesting. Make sure you watch the pilot interview.

TheCrux
03-13-2005, 06:56 AM
Well it was interesting.....Sorta' like a steer: A point here, and a point there- and a lot of bull in between.

I'm not going to do a line by line dissection here, but just a few notes:

- The writer seemed to transpose data/figures of A/C ( models/years ) to present the '109 in the most favorable light. ( "apples vs oranges" )

- Regarding the oft repeated and ballyhooed lower '109 losses ( something like 171? ) during the BOB, compared to the Spitfire/Hurricane studiously ignores the mauling the Luftwaffe bombers got...and that the bombers were the RAF's main target.

Cajun76
03-13-2005, 07:05 AM
Yep, according to those numbers, there ought to be at least 25,000 examples just sitting around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And I had no idea the Me-109G was zooming around in 1941. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-13-2005, 07:40 AM
OMG new Statistics. I dont think that they give any info at all . 1 of the reasons is how to check if you downed a plane if it was a kill ? If that is spits over europe or mes over uk doesnt matter both not possible. Brits had a very intresting system when some parts of the crashed plane could be recovered and built in other planes it was no loss . Then it doesnt list a aircraft type and it doesnt list years 43 - 45 for obvious reason. It cant be a overall statistic cause of the low number there were lots of crashes and lots of more inconsistences .After all no source is givin !

The Lift coefficient iirc was about 1.8 or 9 something with slats but surely not double 1.6 = 3.2. Thats a Emil i think what is in the picture left and G Series surely came out later than 41.

With the airfoil on p51 that is indeed a point cause when dust was on it even little the laminar flow was ineffective. But it worked for clean conditions.

This one got me laughing .

" Because of the fantastic handling characteristics of the Me109, the P-51 was no match for the Me 109."

Well that could be a vvs evaluation of german planes i read some time ago cant turn = **** plane.

For the Spits this negative g problem got corrected faster but dont remember excact date.

just my 0.02 "

LStarosta
03-13-2005, 07:57 AM
LOL This isn't the first time these two have made total idiots of themselves. I'll personally buy and send them each a copy of IL2FB AEP PF just so I can hand their a$ses to them on a silver platter. They can keep using their uber rudder authority and turn in circles while I boom them out of the fricken sky.

Goebbels would give these guys a fricken medal* if he were alive.


* By medal I mean something far more nasty.

Wseivelod
03-13-2005, 09:02 AM
i'm sure they would appreciate a free copy of FB..... so why don't you go ahead and do that?

JG52Karaya-X
03-13-2005, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
And I had no idea the Me-109G was zooming around in 1941. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement bears SOME truth... The Bf109G did not see any prototype planes - instead early machines simply were modified Bf109Fs - the first Bf109Gs (G0s to be exact) rolled of the assembly line in Octobre, 1941. However these planes were still outfitted with the old DB601 that was also used in the Bf109F3/4 - not until early 1942 did the Bf109G receive the more potent but also slightly heavier DB605A.

So wether we call it a late 1941 or early 1942 plane is up to discussion. 1942 however would make more sense in my eyes, as it would also make more sense to make the P51B into a late 1943 bird instead of 1942 (first prototype flight Decembre 1942 - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif), P63 also 1945, P40E 1942, P39D2 1942


S!

TAGERT.
03-13-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheCrux:
Well it _was_ interesting.....Sorta' like a steer: A point here, and a point there- and a lot of bull in between. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

Kurfurst__
03-13-2005, 11:42 AM
Indeed this article is quite a bit biased, but nonetheless makes some interesting points. Myself takes it with a grain of salt. The problem is not really it points out the smart design features of the 109, but that it does it in a very extreme way. There are some errors as well, ie. the 109G, unless if we speak of prototypes was not an 1941 aircraft etc.

But such is a case with sites done by fans... sometimes a critic is neccesary to be read along with them, like this : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=3691057192

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wallstein
03-13-2005, 12:42 PM
Interesting. Thank you. (I did not watch the videos.)

I`m a musician, so I can´t comment the technical data. Anyhow, as said, your link is interesting, just like the comments of the other guys above.

This or that - may the things have been what ever during the second world war, as far as I have undestood the Luftwaffe pilots were simply far more experienced than their opponents which alone has had a vital effect for the air combats. Later on as the "old guard" died the war became more difficult for Luftwaffe.

I have read so much about (WWII) aeroplanes, pilots etc and there has been so little what I truly can understand (LOL), that I don´t exactly know what to say about information you provide. Thank you anyhow. IT IS INTERESTING!

LeOs.K_Walstein

jugent
03-13-2005, 02:30 PM
interesting how many souces there are. Perhaps this article will be fulfilled the day a german game-producer creates game.

Syama
03-13-2005, 02:54 PM
Is it true that the 109-E could out turn BoB era Spits? I was watching a documentary last night and they said that because of the Spit's ease of handling it would usually out turn the 109. But they also said the 109 could out turn the Spit but pilots were reluctant to push it that far because of it's poor stall warning and it's general *****iness to fly...

darkhorizon11
03-13-2005, 06:38 PM
I'd say all three planes are relatively equal overall. Depending upon which version of each plane since the Me-109 and Spitfire since the difference early war and late war versions of each respectable plane were radical. The way I ussually understand it that the Me-109 was able to carries a much wider assortment of weapons. Most of which were much more powerful than anything the Spit or Mustang carried. This was often a disadvantage however because the carriage of this extra firepower sacraficed performance, sometimes in a drastic way. The Mustang and the Spit however were generally faster. The exception would be the K-4 variant but not many were made and the quality was bad so it really depends. You can go on and on, really the knowledge I fly with in combat is that at lower altitudes especially below 1500 meters the Me-109 holds an advantage, at higher altitudes the card goes to the Mustang. Mid war Me-109s pretty much get roasted by Mustangs if they hang at high altitudes trying to score some extra points on bombers. The Spitfire is a good mix of both worlds. Its fast yet manueverable. Early war Spits ussually out turn everything in the air.

Once again you can go on and on but when push comes to shove in real WWII engagements more Mustangs came out victories more often than not over the Me-109s although it really came down to pilot skill.

VW-IceFire
03-13-2005, 06:45 PM
The 109 has its impressive place in history but this is sort of a pump one up and put a downer on the rest sort of thing. Its not a critical analysis, nots pretty biased towards one plane and away from others, its hard to accept in its total presentation even if the actual information is right (which you could question potentially).

The Bf.109 is impressive for sure...alongside the other classics like the FW.190, the Mustang, the Spitfire, the Thunderbolt, P-38, even the Yak and Lavochkin families have their unique and extremely impressive attributes. And thats why we all (hopefully) find them all so fascinating.

Honestly, if your a simmer only, you need to go and find a World War II warbird. Appreciate them personally...if its allowed have a look inside the cockpit. They are impressive machines regardless of which one it is.

blakduk
03-13-2005, 07:31 PM
Interesting article- in the same way the Michael Moore is interesting. He talks a lot of s**t, but that doesnt mean he is necessarily wrong.
The truth is, the allies won the war and got to publish their version first. Most of the popular literature post-ww2 stated that everything the allies made was superior, most of the time it was flag waving nonsense (The mythology became so entrenched that by the time the soviets had created the Mig-15 and sputnik the western allies couldnt believe it).
Clever pilots who managed to survive ww2 did so by not underestimating their opponent. The spitfire and 109 were so closely matched in the BOB that it was the closest one could say it ever came to being an even match. This is not only reflected in the statistics for each plan, but also the kill ratios.

Badsight.
03-13-2005, 07:45 PM
ive seen some load-of-rubbish web pages before , but that one is special

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
03-14-2005, 12:26 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
blakduk----Interesting article- in the same way the Michael Moore is interesting. He talks a lot of s**t, but that doesnt mean he is necessarily wrong.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Hmmm using MM as a source of truth ? Moore is an enigma wrapped up in a lie and overlayed in deciet. If you think the cut n pasteing/editing moore did to the people he interviewed is correct, then you must think X-Files is historical fact and black helicopters are circling your home at night.


___