PDA

View Full Version : Modern Bf-109 pilot interview



stalkervision
03-14-2011, 03:43 PM
short interview but very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...38sE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69pO7538sE&feature=related)

not the best video but what the pilot says is the important thing.

stalkervision
03-14-2011, 03:43 PM
short interview but very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...38sE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69pO7538sE&feature=related)

not the best video but what the pilot says is the important thing.

danjama
03-14-2011, 03:46 PM
Could you tell me what to search? The link won't work on my mobile.

M_Gunz
03-14-2011, 04:02 PM
Except that there was a P-51 pilot who did shoot a 109 down by jamming his rudder hard and shooting from wide slip and told about it on one of the shows.

There's also the one about killing a Tiger tank by bouncing 50 cal bullets off the road underneath.

stalkervision
03-14-2011, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Could you tell me what to search? The link won't work on my mobile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's in you tube under..

"Modern Bf-109 pilot interview"

Wildnoob
03-14-2011, 05:51 PM
Is that what I heard:

"Skip says he can pick 5 or 6 Mustang if them can hold on for a fight?"

If yes, then we have the same VVS claim about superior close in dogfight hability meaning a superior aircraft.
I don't like such affirmations, because they are not realistic about WWII combat. Realistically speaking, he could get the 5 or 6 Mustangs as well as just one could get him, or even a well flown Mustang avoid 5 or 6 109s.

Wildnoob
03-14-2011, 05:56 PM
I couldn't edit: "could get".

BillSwagger
03-14-2011, 06:46 PM
I like his descriptions but I think there is only so much you can apply WW2 combat to airshow show planes.

Its already known a P-51 pilot used speed over maneuverability in combat. Why 5-6 P-51s would slow down enough to play the 109's fight I'm not sure.
I've read repeatedly the 109 was a stable plane to such an extent that pointing or aiming on the yaw axis became difficult at high speeds.
It was actually good for diving because there was little slip but once the plane got going it would require significant stick force to change its course.

WTE_Ibis
03-14-2011, 11:54 PM
Nice, not to hijack your thread but after watching that I niticed this absolute gem,
a FW190 pilots story.
An American interviewing his former teacher who was a 190 pilot,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...mbS4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6AIpU3mbS4&feature=related)

Ten parts but part 7 seems to be missing.
cheers,
Ibis.

Wildnoob
03-15-2011, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Why 5-6 P-51s would slow down enough to play the 109's fight I'm not sure.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.

That's the point. And if I'm not wrong, Skip Holm is or was a military pilot. Although this don't impressed me, as the soviets also thought the same about the Fw 190. The difference is something called "your preference".
But today we can have a general view, I don't like from people not knowing how the warbirds were used talking BS. And there's a lot of "acrobatic" pilots drawing conclusions or supporting myths by this.

DrHerb
03-15-2011, 10:04 AM
AFAIK, Skip Holm flew the P-51 as well. I'd trust his opinion on both aircraft.

Wildnoob
03-15-2011, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
AFAIK, Skip Holm flew the P-51 as well. I'd trust his opinion on both aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I trust more in guys like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7TmpD5plWc

And I say this because Bud was a combat pilot, was teached about the strenghts of the P-51 and the 109 by the USAAF. He also flown the plane in combat situations, with WEP, in high altitude and without limitations. Opossed as contemporany pilots do today.

If you give a Zero to Skip against a P-40, he will probably say the same. Althought again, the real use of the aircraft could differ greatly, as this Wik article about the P-40 says:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, with sufficient altitude the P-40 could actually turn with the A6M and other Japanese fighters, using a combination of nose-down vertical turn with a bank turn, a technique known as a low yo-yo. Robert DeHaven describes how this tactic was used in the 49th Fighter group:

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... [i]f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

I have no doubt the 109 will outturn the P-51 in a slow speed fight. But as Bill already said: "which Mustang pilot will fight the enemy on his own terms?"

Skip puts something really partial here, because it looks like the Mustang was something like a bad plane, and a well flown 109 could take 6 of them. If something like "in this kind of fight" not appeared, this is really the perspective he is leatting, and this is something sad.

stalkervision
03-15-2011, 03:22 PM
Here is my take of things..

The 109 g's were heavily over loaded with cannon and cannon ammo to handle the heavily armed and armored bombers which reduced the fighters performance very significantly against lightly armed Mustangs. The fw-190's performance fell off considerably at the height the B-17's came into bomb so they were no help.

In an attempt to try to solve this situation some squadrons of 109's were very lightly armed to handle the American fighters almost like the situation in BOB where the Spits guarded the Hurricanes from attack as they attacked the german bombers.

The problem was that the american fighters showed up in such large numbers that they very frequently cut right through the lightly armed fighter escort and did major damage to the "heavy units"

As galland said about the heavily armed Me-109's

"a fighter overloaded and defaced this way was nearly useless in a dogfight"

another fact was frequently the germans were forced to send older non menthol boosted 109's into combat which made the situation even worse. Hartman complains about this fact and how flying these older models affected his squadron very badly including himself.

and the heavily armed 110's and me-410's that were doing major damage to the bombers with their heavy cannon had no chance whatsoever.


In one of Erich Hartman's missions he had 10 ! mustangs after him split into two pairs of four each.

He ended up bailing out when his fuel ran out as they were chasing him back to base.

In spite of flying older 109's Hartman was successful against the american mustangs near the end of the war and scored multiple kills against them defending the oil fields of Polesti.

another very important factor Hartman mention to Hitler was the criminal practice of sending up inexperienced and poorly trained pilots in any bad weather whatsoever. The germans never did rectify this major major dimwitted high command attitude.

Galland voiced this very same complaint. He wanted to husband all the newly trained pilots for huge good weather intercepts and not waste them getting killed in bad weather flying accidents.

The germans finally at the very end started to do this in preparation for the battle of the bulge as a large ground attack and battlefield air superiority force but they weren't needed because of the bad weather.

"operation boddenplate"

horseback
03-16-2011, 01:14 PM
Every time I read or hear one of these air show pilots take on the relative merits of WWII fighters, I have some questions: “Did he fly this aircraft (or against it) in combat? Did he push it to the limits and fire his guns in anger? Did he take it up to 35,000 ft using the oxygen equipment of the era, and try to do aerobatics? Has he even flown either aircraft with wartime equipment, including loaded guns?”

Most often, the answer is no, or he flew Thuds, Huns or Phantoms over Vietnam, mostly dropping bombs on ground targets. Hairy, yes, but not the same as gunfighting in a high performance prop plane in the stratosphere over Central Europe.

His points of comparison are interesting and probably valid in the context of low to medium altitude maneuverability and stability. However, his judgment of the two aircraft as gun platforms is not based on direct experience unless he’s fired a war load battery from both aircraft, and I’m just guessing here, but I doubt that anyone anywhere has flown a Messerschmitt 109 of any variety with a full gun and ammo load since the late nineteen forties, much less fired at a target.

We have several Allied pilots accounts of using the rudder to ‘hose down’ an enemy aircraft as thoroughly as possible from close range in most US types, most certainly including the Mustang. In the case of the Mustang’s merits, we have the testimony of the first men who flew it over Germany in very limited numbers and came back proclaiming that it could take on the 109 and the Focke-Wulf from 35,000 ft right down to the dirt. From mid December 1943 until late spring of 1944, only a small number of Mustangs and Lightnings had the range to reach into Germany, and the statistics say that they were able to wreak havoc out of all proportion to their numbers. Galland’s autobiography makes it plain that that was when the experienced pool of fighter pilots was drained, so it isn’t as though the Americans were taking down inexperienced or outnumbered opposition during that period.

No doubt part of this is because of the way each side actually flew the aircraft rather than what we now know about the aircrafts’ relative merits (neither side really had a true understanding of the enemy’s aircraft during the war). Part of it is also because the Mustang over Germany was considerably lighter than it was when it took off from England, and part of it may also be because the German fighters it encountered were still on the edge of overheating after a fast climb to altitude.

As for the argument that the 109G was limited because of cannon pods, the consensus I get from German pilot accounts is that as the 109 got ever bigger engines so that it could perform at the same levels as late model Allied fighters, it got heavier and less responsive, even without the gun pods. The basic airframe was intended for lower speeds and weights, and the demand for higher performance simply took it out of its ‘sweet spot’.

The examples flying today are much closer to that sweet spot, because the guns and ammo are removed, along with the bulky pressurized oxygen systems, old fashioned radios and armor required for wartime service. Considering how much larger and heavier the Mustang was, Mustangs today would be proportionally closer to wartime weight and responsiveness because a lower overall percentage of its weight has been removed.

cheers

horseback

stalkervision
03-16-2011, 02:31 PM
You have to read the book by Adolph Galland "The first and the last" H/B if you haven't yet.

I believe you would enjoy it a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.amazon.com/First-La...id=1300307667&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.com/First-Last-Adolf-Galland/dp/B0025VWYMY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307667&sr=1-2)

Engadin
03-16-2011, 04:43 PM
BTW, the '109' in the background is a Rolls Royce Merlined 'Buchón'.

horseback
03-16-2011, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You have to read the book by Adolph Galland "The first and the last" H/B if you haven't yet.

I believe you would enjoy it a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.amazon.com/First-La...id=1300307667&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.com/First-Last-Adolf-Galland/dp/B0025VWYMY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307667&sr=1-2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, that would be <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland’s autobiography </div></BLOCKQUOTE> right?

Probably read it before you were out of diapers. My paperback copy cost $1.95 when it was new (so that would've been around 1978).

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
03-17-2011, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No doubt part of this is because of the way each side actually flew the aircraft rather than what we now know about the aircrafts’ relative merits (neither side really had a true understanding of the enemy’s aircraft during the war). Part of it is also because the Mustang over Germany was considerably lighter than it was when it took off from England, and part of it may also be because the German fighters it encountered were still on the edge of overheating after a fast climb to altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe because most of the LW pilots weren't all that hot as stories want you to believe.

Or maybe they just didn't give a damn about shooting down escort-fighters, focussing on their task and shooting down Viermots instead.

Or maybe they didn't have enough fuel for focussing on extensive dogfights.

The P-51's tactical situation (coming in from above rather than climbing into the fight) has propably more impact than most people think.
It's a mixture of a lot of factors.


Both, the 109 and Mustang are flying at lower gross-weights and power-settings than during wartime-encounters.
Growing wing-loading and engine-power are more important in the traffic-pattern than during dogfights, where the greater power can compensate the grown wing-loading to a large extent.

At the end of the day, airplane-comparisons are mostly down to pilot-preference.

M_Gunz
03-17-2011, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
At the end of the day, airplane-comparisons are mostly down to pilot-preference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also when history of wins and losses are quoted it's really more about mission, circumstances and pilot skill than the actual planes. How many times I watch shows where they tell that Plane X did this and that. Without the pilot, Plane X would do nothing! And no plane ever made a rookie into veteran quality let alone ace just by sitting in the cockpit.

Perhaps instead of shows about the planes we should be seeing more shows about the pilots?

stalkervision
03-18-2011, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You have to read the book by Adolph Galland "The first and the last" H/B if you haven't yet.

I believe you would enjoy it a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.amazon.com/First-La...id=1300307667&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.com/First-Last-Adolf-Galland/dp/B0025VWYMY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307667&sr=1-2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, that would be <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland’s autobiography </div></BLOCKQUOTE> right?

Probably read it before you were out of diapers. My paperback copy cost $1.95 when it was new (so that would've been around 1978).

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine is the twelfth printing 1973.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Treetop64
03-20-2011, 12:35 PM
Just watched that interview...

"...Skip says, Skip says..."

Warbird pilot or not, I think "Skip" is full of it.

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

Xiolablu3
03-20-2011, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You have to read the book by Adolph Galland "The first and the last" H/B if you haven't yet.

I believe you would enjoy it a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.amazon.com/First-La...id=1300307667&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.com/First-Last-Adolf-Galland/dp/B0025VWYMY/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307667&sr=1-2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, that would be <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland’s autobiography </div></BLOCKQUOTE> right?

Probably read it before you were out of diapers. My paperback copy cost $1.95 when it was new (so that would've been around 1978).

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read it and it wasnt one of my favourite 'Air combat/tactics' books, although it is interesting. There is not that much air combat in it, its more a description of Gallands opinion and problems he faced as a General(or whatever rank he was, I forget), throughout the war, as far as I can remember.

Compared to Heinz Knockes 'I flew for the fuhrer', W D Duncan Smiths 'Spitfire into Battle (&lt; - excellent book you might not have heard of btw) or Johnnie Johnsons 'Wing Leader', the air combat in Gallands Bio is minimal.

Kurfurst__
03-21-2011, 12:38 PM
I don't get what's the big fuss about, he seems to say that the 109 had good snaking characteristics, which is 'what I have heard everywhere'. Ie. Southwood, Hanna says the directional stability is low, even some a Jerry doc fragment I have also says that it's 'gering' (low); and as far as I understand aerodynamics, stability along a particular axis of the airplane usually means less manouverability, and vica versa. This is just the other side of the coin which says that plenty of rudder work to keep the plane 'centered' and fly it 'neatly' during manauevres.

ChiFunk
03-22-2011, 09:42 AM
All the bashing Skip on here because he has no actual combat experience in a 109 is wasted... Remember, 99.9% of us are COMPUTER GAME jockeys commenting on a real 109 pilot's opinions... take each with a grain of salt (mine included).

My 2 cents, Skip probably has a much better idea of the FM of the 109 than Oleg ever will.

M_Gunz
03-22-2011, 03:31 PM
What, is it impossible to do as described in IL2:1946?

Lot of people can't coordinate a proper turn let alone roll in 1946. It may take a Skip Holm to duplicate in the sim what Skip Holm does IRL. If Joe Blow can't match the move then what does that prove about 1946?

As I pointed out, one US pilot DID slam his rudder hard and DID shoot a 109 he was fighting in the resulting skid. Whether the 109 was better suited to do so, the P-51 with that pilot at the controls was capable of doing so at extreme angle.

Lot of players shoot from slip in IL2. Just not all of them make hits.

BillSwagger
03-22-2011, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ChiFunk:
All the bashing Skip on here because he has no actual combat experience in a 109 is wasted... Remember, 99.9% of us are COMPUTER GAME jockeys commenting on a real 109 pilot's opinions... take each with a grain of salt (mine included).

My 2 cents, Skip probably has a much better idea of the FM of the 109 than Oleg ever will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're into aviation and not just the computer aspect of flight simming, try to get out to an air-show that actually show cases various WW2 airplanes in real life. Watch how they perform. I doubt very much that they push these aircraft beyond a certain point and yet the level of performance achieved in Spits, 109s and P-40s seems to indicate that they all were quite nimble such that any differences achieved would requiring pushing them beyond today's regulated limits, something rarely found at an air-show.
I've seen P-40s at an air-show go into vertical climbs that matched Spitfires, and still flicked off the top of the loop into a tight radius at very low airspeed. Its quite contradictory to any indication of written history.
Could it be the lack of armor, armament, and other equipment that might have weighted down the plane to hinder performance in actual combat?
Could it be that the revisionists fouled up history or exasperated differences even more so than the pilots themselves?
Who knows, but I found there is lot to learn by actually seeing these aircraft perform.

Just my observations:
The 109 appears to be a fast plane with a quick roll reversal. Its overall roll rate tends to be slower, but the fact it can roll in one direction and then snap back to the other direction is probably an indication of its lighter frame and low roll inertia.
A P-51, being heavier might have more roll inertia meaning more energy is expelled in reversing the roll than what would be required of the 109. It might roll in one direction and not follow in the reverse direction as quickly.
Hence, why combat pilots in heavier fighters usually followed a reverse roll by simply rolling in the same direction 180 degress until they were banked at the same angle as the aircraft they were following. Supposedly less 'mush' that way too.
Just to site two examples.

Bill

Kurfurst__
03-23-2011, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

Just my observations:
The 109 appears to be a fast plane with a quick roll reversal. Its overall roll rate tends to be slower, but the fact it can roll in one direction and then snap back to the other direction is probably an indication of its lighter frame and low roll inertia.
A P-51, being heavier might have more roll inertia meaning more energy is expelled in reversing the roll than what would be required of the 109. It might roll in one direction and not follow in the reverse direction as quickly.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good observation on roll acceleration! I would, however, attribute this to maximum aileron deflection angles (i.e ca. 30 degrees on the 109, 10 degrees on the Mustang)

BillSwagger
03-23-2011, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(i.e ca. 30 degrees on the 109, 10 degrees on the Mustang) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe so, but i think the speed the aircraft is flying at also will dictate the achievable deflection angle.
Its also why pilots who make blanket statements about aircraft comparisons should also be a bit more specific about speed and height.

M_Gunz
03-23-2011, 10:03 AM
Skip Holm may be able to check an FM for a 109 but I seriously doubt that he could make one!

waffen-79
03-23-2011, 04:54 PM
I guess, Holm really hit the soft spot

as mentioned here:

-He does actually fly those warbirds
-Not in combat or same weather and condition real ww2 pilots did

I do 'SOMETIMES' favor real ww2 narrations and anecdotes

but you have to take that with a grain of salt, also

remember they are biased by nationalism and propaganda.

whenever I read or listen to them, I always cut down 30% of speeds, altitudes and victories adn you should do the same, BE SURE

Wildnoob
03-24-2011, 10:29 AM
Guys, this is very simple: imagine Skip as a Japanese pilot, with his bandana, flight goggles, and all the Japanese pilot apparel, and turninfight skill flying a vastly more nimble in "knife fights" Ki-43, early in the war.
Now, imagine that our friend meets with the Flying Tigers over Burma, and then he will have a good chance of kill them as well as they have to kill him. So again; it's the man behind the stick and the proper tactics that will decided. No more talk needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

chu082011
03-06-2012, 09:45 AM
Guys, this is very simple: imagine Skip as a Japanese pilot, with his bandana, flight goggles, and all the Japanese pilot apparel, and turninfight skill flying a vastly more nimble in "knife fights" Ki-43, early in the war.
Now, imagine that our friend meets with the Flying Tigers over Burma, and then he will have a good chance of kill them as well as they have to kill him. So again; it's the man behind the stick and the proper tactics that will decided. No more talk needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hi,

Thank very much for your comment. It help me to think about for my ideals.

This link below can show more info, you can find them at: Pilot interview questions (http://interviewquestionsandanswers.biz/pilot-interview-questions-and-answers/)

Tks again and pls keep posting.