American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the BF109E/G and FW-190.

[GridiroN]

I cleaned it up a little because the grammatical formatting was horrible. It's not as long a read as it looks but I figured some people might be interested in reading an American's fighter pilot and engineer's take on German fighter design. According to wikipedia, he has 18 aerial victories, 12 of them are FW190's according to him. 

 

I think some of his opinions are rather coloured, but otherwise, some interesting points regarding the combat characteristics of each plane.

 

TD;DR: the 109 sucked horribly and the FW was pretty great. 

 

 

The Best of the Breed

by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4

 

Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.

Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.

 

The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.

 

So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.

 

The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.

 

The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.

 

Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.

 

Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.



Me 109

General Characteristics:

The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.

 

An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had damn little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.

 

In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.



Me-109E Me-109G

Mean weight, lbs: 5580 6450

Engine: DB 601, DB 605A

Horsepower: 1100/15,000 ft. 1475/22,000 ft.

Power loading: lbs./HP 5.07 4.37

Wing loading: lbs./sq. ft. 32.1 37.5

Prop. diameter: ft. 10.2 9.83

Gear Ratio: 14/9 16.85/10

Wing Geometry: Area sq. ft. 174 172

Span: ft. 32.4 32.6

Mean Chord: ft. 5.36 5.38

Aspect Ratio: 6.05 6.10

Dihedral: degrees 5.75 5.75

Sweepback: degrees 1.0 1.0

Root chord: ft. 7.03 7.0

Tip chord: ft. 3.42 3.42

Root thickness: percent chord 14.8 14.2

Tip thickness: percent chord 10.5 11.3

Slat length/span: percent 46.2 Approx. same

Slat Chord/local chord: percent 11.8 Approx. same

Wing Twist: Root to tip 0 0

Speed: mph 354/12,500 ft. 387/23,000 ft.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.

 

Engine and Propellor:

In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.

 

Wings and Controls:

The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.

There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.

Performance Evaluation:

 

The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.

Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.

The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.

 

Fighting Qualities:

A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

 

Ailerons:

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

 

• (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
• ​(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
• (3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.

 

​Elevator:

 

This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

 

Rudder:

At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

 

Control Harmony:

At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.

 

Aerobatics:

Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.

The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.

 

Turning Radius:

At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

 

Summary:

 

Good points:

• (1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
• (2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
• (3) Good control response at low speeds.
• (4) Easy stall, not precipitous.

Bad Points:

• (1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
• (2) Poor turning radius.
• (3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
• (4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
• (5) Cockpit too cramped.
• (6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
• (7) Range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.

That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and Göring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.

Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"

The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.

The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.

Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.

I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.

Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.

An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.

 

• (1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
• (2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
• (3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
• (4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
• (5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
• (6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
• (7) Retract tail wheel.

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.



Fw 190A

 

General Characteristics:

A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.

They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.

On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.

 

Mean weight: 8580

Engine: BMW 801D

Horsepower: 1600

Power loading: lbs./HP 5.36

Wing loading: lbs./sq.ft. 41.7

Prop diameter: ft. 10.86

 

Wing Geometry:

Area: sq.ft. 205

Span: ft. 34.5

Mean chord: ft. 5.95

Aspect Ratio: 5.8

Dihedral: degrees 5

Sweepback: degrees 5.5

Root chord: ft. 7.45

Tip chord: ft. 4.05

Thickness Ratio: percent 12

Maximum thickness location: Between 25 and 30 percent

Top speed: mph 408/20,600 ft.

 

Engine and Propeller:

The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.

I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.

 

Wings and Controls:

Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.

 

Performance Evaluation:

The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.

High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.

 

Fighting Qualities:

Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

 

Summary:

 

Bad points:

 

• (1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
• (2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
• (3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
• (4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.

Good points:

 

• Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.

​

Edited September 18, 2016 by GridiroN

[Crump]

 

 

Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.

 

The science backs that up.  See:

 

 http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25270-aerodynamical-question/?p=391121

[JtD]

While this opinion is interesting overall (it's been around for years), there are a couple of point regarding the aerodynamic qualities that are too simplified. One of the main points is the drag figures he stating. While I wouldn't necessarily agree on the drag coefficients he mentions for the Spitfire and the Bf109, these aren't the main point - the main point is that they both refer to their reference areas, of 22m² for the Spitfire, and 16m² for the Bf109, which means even with the figures he's quoting, there's very little to chose in terms of drag between the two. As someone else put it, he's basically forgetting that small size is an aerodynamic quality on it's own - and clearly one of the strong points of the 109..

Edited September 18, 2016 by JtD

[GridiroN]

While this opinion is interesting overall (it's been around for years), there are a couple of point regarding the aerodynamic qualities that are too simplified. One of the main points is the drag figures he stating. While I wouldn't necessarily agree on the drag coefficients he mentions for the Spitfire and the Bf109, these aren't the main point - the main point is that they both refer to their reference areas, of 22m² for the Spitfire, and 16m² for the Bf109, which means even with the figures he's quoting, there's very little to chose in terms of drag between the two. As someone else put it, he's basically forgetting that small size is an aerodynamic quality on it's own - and clearly one of the strong points of the 109..

 

I know nothing of aerospace engineering, but yes, as I said, some of his opinions, even to a lamen, seem rather coloured. I think it comes across rather strongly that he's analyzing the two planes based more on what the Americans felt was valuable in a fighter plane, not why the Germans made any of the decisions they did. 

 

One of his major critisms running through the whole write up is the endurance of the 109, but imo, given Germany's strategic position and tactical doctrine, it doesn't seem to me that a 109 with an 8hr endurance was what the Luftwaffe needed. 

[Solty]

I know nothing of aerospace engineering, but yes, as I said, some of his opinions, even to a lamen, seem rather coloured. I think it comes across rather strongly that he's analyzing the two planes based more on what the Americans felt was valuable in a fighter plane, not why the Germans made any of the decisions they did. 

 

One of his major critisms running through the whole write up is the endurance of the 109, but imo, given Germany's strategic position and tactical doctrine, it doesn't seem to me that a 109 with an 8hr endurance was what the Luftwaffe needed. 

Well with long range bombers and long range fighter escort they could have changed a lot on the eastern front.

 

But thats not the biggest problem for the 109. I find the pilot ergonomics the biggest issue. The bad visiblity, the problematic landing gear which would cost lots of lives, the control stifness at high speeds. Those are all things that many others comfirm. Both from the German and the Allied side and even modern test pilots that had the ability to fly the 109 or the Buchon.

 

At low speeds the airplane is a great dogfighter. Not as good as the Spitfire when it comes to turning but overall its good and clearly had advantages in years 1941-42 over Spit V and most soviet airplanes used during this time period (I153, I16, LaGG-3, Yak7 etc.). Since E4 the prop govenor was very nice and pilot could only focus on flying. Thats a lot of work that the pilot doesn't have to do. Thats very good.

 

Its not that it is the only airplane that had limitations but they weren't as piled up on each other it seems.

 

The Spitfire also has bad aileron control at high speed, very similar to the 109, just has better ergonomics but the control harmonization is not there at all, the airplane has a very light elevator.

Typhoon was an airplane which had realy poor aileron control, even worse than 109 and elevator control was probably on par(no data realy avaiable).

 

So many airplanes and each has its charm.

Edited September 18, 2016 by =LD=Solty

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Thx for sharing !

[Kurfurst]

I think some of his opinions are rather coloured, but otherwise, some interesting points regarding the combat characteristics of each plane.

 

TD;DR: the 109 sucked horribly and the FW was pretty great. 

 

That's one way to see it. Personally, my favorite part is where Carson (who?) gets on rolling criticizing one of the most established avition designers of the XX century, proposing design changes that were (i) either done and implemented but Carson never heard of them (ii) were tried and tested but didn't live up to Carson's expectations.

 

In his defense, when he wrote that the level of research on the 109 was much in its infancy and the best things he could find in the subject were either inaccurate or incomplete. Most shockingly of all he seems to be completely unaware of the design changes that came with the 109F...

 

In any case, Carson had no personal engineering or flight experience on the subject, as you can see he is mostly summarizing the 1940 Morgan report on the 109E, available here: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Maybe I am wrong, but I think for the people who criticizes the poor visibility of Me109G caused by the frame of canopy forgets 1 thing is that 109's cockpit is so much smaller than American fighter's. 109 pilot's head is so close to the canopy, so only small head moving can make the view shift a lot to overcome the blind field created by struts in certain extend.

[unreasonable]

Maybe I am wrong, but I think for the people who criticizes the poor visibility of Me109G caused by the frame of canopy forgets 1 thing is that 109's cockpit is so much smaller than American fighter's. 109 pilot's head is so close to the canopy, so only small head moving can make the view shift a lot to overcome the blind field created by struts in certain extend.

 

Yes but it is not just the canopy struts: the 109 pilot has a low seating position with legs stretched out, which is advantageous for high G maneouvres. By comparison the the US fighters such as the P51 position the pilot "on top" of the fuselage, in a more erect posture. This makes it easier to turn the head and look behind the wing, and once you have turned less of your potential POV is obscured by the aircraft. So even with a bubble canopy the 109 would still have rather poor visibility compared to most US (and later UK) designs.

 

In BoS we suffer less disadvantage since it is possible to turn the view to such an extent that you can see the whole headrest, which I expect would be physically impossible for a strapped in pilot. Even so, the low head position restricts what you can see in the 109. 

 

It would be interesting to get player reaction if limits on turning the pov to the rear were more hardcoded into the game....

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Yes but it is not just the canopy struts: the 109 pilot has a low seating position with legs stretched out, which is advantageous for high G maneouvres. By comparison the the US fighters such as the P51 position the pilot "on top" of the fuselage, in a more erect posture. This makes it easier to turn the head and look behind the wing, and once you have turned less of your potential POV is obscured by the aircraft. So even with a bubble canopy the 109 would still have rather poor visibility compared to most US (and later UK) designs.

 

In BoS we suffer less disadvantage since it is possible to turn the view to such an extent that you can see the whole headrest, which I expect would be physically impossible for a strapped in pilot. Even so, the low head position restricts what you can see in the 109. 

 

It would be interesting to get player reaction if limits on turning the pov to the rear were more hardcoded into the game....

I cannot get you point here, The higher elevation of the cockpit does not make you turn your head easier to check your six. The head turn angle is same if you want to check six clock. The problem of 109 is that it has a higher dorsal which blocks its six clock view. as I said because 109's cockpit is so narrow that it can help the pilot to minimize the dead zone at six o'clock.

In addition I remember that some article mentioned that WW2 fighter veteran always suggest newbies not to tighten their strapped too hard to lean and turn head to check the 6 clock.

Edited October 1, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05

[E69_geramos109]

Jajajaja. So funny post.
Explain me if the 109 is worse than spitfire in aerodinamics why it has more top speed with less engine power.
Range inadecuate?? And the 109 has more range than an spitfire.

This report is [Edited] and propaganda

Edited October 2, 2016 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Also, the figures on the 109s Landing accidents and the general feeling around them was only somewhat the plane's fault. (Spitfire had a more Narrow Landing Gear)

You also have to factor in:

-Larger Total Number of 109s, having almost 35 000 109s against around 20 000 Fw190s, well, you will hear about twice as many landing accidents of course. 

-Being the "Backbone" Fighter it was the first choice to put the New Pilots on. And given the low hours of late war pilots would of course cause a lot more accidents. 

-Given the Fact that it was the main fighter on the rather poorly prepared fields in the Eastern Front against the 190s being operated from the Good Airfields on the Western Front, once again that plays into the Statistic. 

 

 

I like quoting the Finnish Pilots, simply because they operated the 109 from the worse possible of conditions and still liked the Aircrafts characterisitcs. They are virtually all of the opinion that only a Lack of training was the cause. 

 

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! 
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

 

e 109 G-6: 

Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane. 
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Edited October 1, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Me 109 E/G-2:
The first Finnish Messerschmitt pilots
In February 1943 the first batch of Finnish pilots had been sent to Germany for training into the Messerschmitt. The training period kept extending and the pilots were getting frustrated, as no-one had yet gotten any flights on the Messerschmitts. Finally the group leader, Ehrnrooth, marched angrily to the plane halls, catched the German responsible for the planes and gave him a loud, hard worded dressing in broken German, demanding to get a Messerschmitt. Us others were on side side, watching the event amused, as the German was clearly clueless what was going on, not understanding Erhnrooth.
Finally the German managed to call his superior, a leutnant, who got the same loud treatment. The poor officer surrendered in front of this mad Finnish major. If he wanted to kill himself, let him. One Me 109 E was pulled out of the hangar. The cloud level was 400 meters and the German leutnant suspected, that it is way too low. Ehrnrooth explained, that 400 metes is usual in Finland, at this time of the year. A short inspection of the plane and soon the 1100 HP engine pulled the major into the sky. 
Erhnrooth was an experienced fighter pilot and he tested how the plane reacted and controlled in different speeds. Then he made some acrobatics and one touch'n'go. After 45 minutes he landed, with fine 3-pointer. The plane was refueled and also Pive managed to fly a familirization flight, before the weather got too poor for flying.
Both thought the plane was enjoyable and easy to fly, but suggested us to land in slower speed than the Germans taught. Many Germans had ended up in the fields, after running out of runway when landing with too high speeds.
Now the German leutnant was conviced of our skills and promised our four planes for the next day. I flew my familirization flights with Emil and found it easy and enjoyable to fly. As the day progressed all our pilots managed to fly the Emil at least once. Ehrnrooth, Ervi and Lahtela managed to fly also the Gustav.
The German trainer was amazed to see how our Messerschmitt familization flights progressed without difficulty. The most amazing detail was how our pilots were immediately landing 3-pointers even with the Gustav, requiring less than half of the lenght of runway the Germans needed.

The Germans' proglem with the 1475 HP Gustav was, that they raised the tail immediately after pushing the throttle fully forward. The strong engine created a tendency to swing the tail. When landing the Germans had way too much speed, so it was hard to control to plane when the wheels touched ground and the plane bounced back into air.
On 21st February (1943) I got my second flight with a Emil. I felt ready to move into the Gustav, but the weather turned bad and flights had to be suspended.
Finally the fog lifted, on 27.2., I flew my first flight with Gustav and all others finished their flights with Emils. However, on next day all flights were interrupted, when the German pupils wrecked for Messerschmitts. 1.3. I finally got my second flight with Gustav and I felt ready to continue to the Messerschmitt factory, to get our own planes.

(Snipped. Jumping over the visit at the factory, the parties and singing and return flight towards Finland, though Germany and Baltics.)

The last phase was flown in most perfect weather. We flew a honorary sweep over Helsinki, in tight formation, kind like showing that here we are now, ready to protect you from enemy bombings. The landing to Malmi airport were faultless. The Germans thought the Malmi airfield, with its only partially coated runways, as a hard place. They had lost here many planes, that were transferring towards north (to Luftloffe 5). The local German detachment was waiting for us in the field, with their fire-brigade in readiness, expecting the worst. He had been told that we had only had a few flights in the Messerschmitts. The fire-brigade chief was clearly very relieved after all planes had landed, without mishaps.
- Lauri Pekuri, Finnish fighter ace. 18 1/2 victories. Source: Lauri Pekuri, Hävittäjälentäjä. WSOY 2006, ISBN 951-0-31907-4.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Me 109 G:
" After the war I was the head trainer (in Utti) for the MT's (Messerchmitt 109s). I made up the training program, I could choose my assistants and I took Salmela and Onni Karhunen. That was our club of three, they did all the work and I got all the honor. Since there were no limits, I chose two of the best mechanics. They (trainees) flew appx. 28 hours each.
- About the MT training, how badly did it pull to the side? Was it really difficult to take off? 
It was a big problem. 
The reason was that the new pilots had flown Pyry before, which was sensitive as hell to fly. Old pilots had Fiat experience, and that one has stiff stick. The usual reason for turning (when taking off) was that they forgot to lock the heel. 
If you forgot to lock the heel, the plane began to turn when speeding up. When the plane was taxiing to starting place, the heel was locked from the cockpit and you began to speed up. By pulling the stick you kept the tail in the ground until you felt in the pedals that the plane is responding to the fin. Then you let the tail rise and kept the plane level, until you took off. It wasn't difficult to take off, but if you left the heel to turn freely, the plane began to turn when speeding up, and the results were often destructive. 
It was a difficult plane. You had to learn it all over from the beginning, to climb into tree's top from the ground.

- The case of one trainee... 
When the training began I said, you take that other plane and we'll fly to Kymi. He started first and I watched him go. Began to turn, hit a ditch and caught fire. I came there, so did the fire squad. But I couldn't go close because he had full armament and the rounds were going off at the nose. I took his burned wallet to his parents later. 
When I could look in the cockpit, I saw he had forgotten to lock the heel. I had told this fellow too, many times over. "Always when you increase the throttle, push both brakes to feel if it turns." When the tail wheel brake is open (not locked), it can turn anywhere. And the propeller was so big that it took the plane with it. 
This is why I expressed it so much, always remember to lock the tail wheel. It was the main reason why we lost MT's and pilots in take-offs. 
- By the way, how was it in start? Heel still down? 
The heel was still in the ground... or there was bad visibility to front. All you had to do was to keep the heel down and let go, and when you felt the rudders move, then you let the tail rise."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

There is a ton of insight into the faults that weren't directly the 109's from these Reports. 

Edited October 1, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Interesting article, GridiroN, thanks a lot for sharing

 

I think the author's perception is surely interesting, but then again it goes into mission profiles more than anything. The two things that stuck out the most to me, particularly in his criticism of the Bf-109: 1) most talking points were only applicable to high speed combat situations, likely to be the ones he faced as a combat pilot. 2) A lot is said about the Bf-109E and the 1944 Bf-109G, but I find it very unfair to gloss over the models between the Bf-109F and Bf-109G-2/4. I consider those the peak of the Bf-109 family because they had speeds and climb rates that beat all of their opposition, armament that was very capable by 1941 and 1942 standards, and remained rather clean aerodynamically unlike the Bf-109G-6 and the other bulge-loving monsters that came afterwards. For what the Allies had at the time - Yaks, LaGGs, Spitfire Vs, P-40s, P-39s, etc. - they were a handful.

 

On the ergonomics and visibility of the Bf-109 I am wholly in agreement though, that cockpit design is a monstrosity.

[E69_geramos109]

Interesting article, GridiroN, thanks a lot for sharing

 

I think the author's perception is surely interesting, but then again it goes into mission profiles more than anything. The two things that stuck out the most to me, particularly in his criticism of the Bf-109: 1) most talking points were only applicable to high speed combat situations, likely to be the ones he faced as a combat pilot. 2) A lot is said about the Bf-109E and the 1944 Bf-109G, but I find it very unfair to gloss over the models between the Bf-109F and Bf-109G-2/4. I consider those the peak of the Bf-109 family because they had speeds and climb rates that beat all of their opposition, armament that was very capable by 1941 and 1942 standards, and remained rather clean aerodynamically unlike the Bf-109G-6 and the other bulge-loving monsters that came afterwards. For what the Allies had at the time - Yaks, LaGGs, Spitfire Vs, P-40s, P-39s, etc. - they were a handful.

 

On the ergonomics and visibility of the Bf-109 I am wholly in agreement though, that cockpit design is a monstrosity.

But you have to compare high speeds caracteristics. All planes had bad handle at high speeds except the high load wings like the 190. The 190 was the only fighter capable to combat only with one hand but if you compare the force needed to moove the stick between the spit and the 109 you may surprise yourself.

Also the trimable estabilizator of the 109 was capable to recover dives over +800 km/h where mustangs have their controls frozen. There are testimonies from P51 pilots talking about that. A friend of our squadron talked with a pilot about that.

Ok the 109G6 has two bulges but the spitfire also has bules on the wings to fill the hispanos. Have you compare radiator surface between MkIX and the 109G? Is far better for the 109, and the G6 with the bulges has more top speed than a MkIX with more power. And is capable to out-turn the MkIX you can read it in a report comparing Mk IX and G6 1.3 ata so 1.4 ata G6 is even better... Remember that Spits also gain weight during the years, not only the 109. They have to rebuild all the entire wings reinforcing the structure to fill inside the Hispanos and extra internal fuel tanks. The MkIX was not the agile FIIa.

Spitfire was meat for the 109 in africa. MkV trops Vs F4, G2, G6... and in 1944 spit was out of the war due to his poor ratius of action. Even in the Battle of Britain if you compare loses of both planes, spit kills for 109 and 109 kills for spits, The spit had more loses so... and the 109s were flying near the bombers in disadvantage so... where is the shit planes that Carson are talking about? Numbers are not telling the same.

You need 3 kind of spits and 3 kind of wings to combat with the same 109. F version, LF, HF, Cliped Wings, Normal Wings...

 

Have you compare the Sice of Both cockpits? Why the spit has a door to get in? You can not fill in to the cockpit if you don´t open the small door on the spit. Please look this photo: 

Have you compare the rear view of the 109 with the corsair, P47 razorback, P40... Also spitfire. The armor plate on the P51D block your view to the rear also. In a 109 with panzerglass you can see all the tail with the vertical stabilizator also.

 

109 was not outclased. The only plane who takes out his supremacy were the P51 during a period of time. With the AS versions ASM, GM1 etc you have an equal plane and the K4 takes the lead again. 

 

The 190 was outclased on 1943. On the Eastern fornt the roll was not an advantage with yaks and Las and the top speed at low alts was not an advantage. Only the Climb performance and the alt performance of the 109 keeps the lead on the eastern fornt where the 109 could attack to climb after that. 

On the west the 190 was not capable to fight at 9k with the p38, p51, P47... only used to attack bombers while 109s fought against the escorts.

 

So here Carson is criticizing the plane who beats all spitfires, P38s, the hurrys, the P40s, and keeps equal with the P47 and P51..

Yes Willy was the worse plane enginier ever for sure jajaja.

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[E69_geramos109]

Maybe I am wrong, but I think for the people who criticizes the poor visibility of Me109G caused by the frame of canopy forgets 1 thing is that 109's cockpit is so much smaller than American fighter's. 109 pilot's head is so close to the canopy, so only small head moving can make the view shift a lot to overcome the blind field created by struts in certain extend.

You can have a 747 cockpit but in a fighter you have to stay filled in to the sit with the belt or G loads can shake you inside so you only can moove a litle on all planes. Only if you take out the belt

[MiloMorai]

You have much to learn young padawan.

 

[Wulf]

But you have to compare high speeds caracteristics. All planes had bad handle at high speeds except the high load wings like the 190. The 190 was the only fighter capable to combat only with one hand but if you compare the force needed to moove the stick between the spit and the 109 you may surprise yourself.

Also the trimable estabilizator of the 109 was capable to recover dives over +800 km/h where mustangs have their controls frozen. There are testimonies from P51 pilots talking about that. A friend of our squadron talked with a pilot about that.

Ok the 109G6 has two bulges but the spitfire also has bules on the wings to fill the hispanos. Have you compare radiator surface between MkIX and the 109G? Is far better for the 109, and the G6 with the bulges has more top speed than a MkIX with more power. And is capable to out-turn the MkIX you can read it in a report comparing Mk IX and G6 1.3 ata so 1.4 ata G6 is even better... Remember that Spits also gain weight during the years, not only the 109. They have to rebuild all the entire wings reinforcing the structure to fill inside the Hispanos and extra internal fuel tanks. The MkIX was not the agile FIIa.

Spitfire was meat for the 109 in africa. MkV trops Vs F4, G2, G6... and in 1944 spit was out of the war due to his poor ratius of action. Even in the Battle of Britain if you compare loses of both planes, spit kills for 109 and 109 kills for spits, The spit had more loses so... and the 109s were flying near the bombers in disadvantage so... where is the shit planes that Carson are talking about? Numbers are not telling the same.

You need 3 kind of spits and 3 kind of wings to combat with the same 109. F version, LF, HF, Cliped Wings, Normal Wings...

 

Have you compare the Sice of Both cockpits? Why the spit has a door to get in? You can not fill in to the cockpit if you don´t open the small door on the spit. Please look this photo: 

Have you compare the rear view of the 109 with the corsair, P47 razorback, P40... Also spitfire. The armor plate on the P51D block your view to the rear also. In a 109 with panzerglass you can see all the tail with the vertical stabilizator also.

 

109 was not outclased. The only plane who takes out his supremacy were the P51 during a period of time. With the AS versions ASM, GM1 etc you have an equal plane and the K4 takes the lead again. 

 

The 190 was outclased on 1943. On the Eastern fornt the roll was not an advantage with yaks and Las and the top speed at low alts was not an advantage. Only the Climb performance and the alt performance of the 109 keeps the lead on the eastern fornt where the 109 could attack to climb after that. 

On the west the 190 was not capable to fight at 9k with the p38, p51, P47... only used to attack bombers while 109s fought against the escorts.

 

So here Carson is criticizing the plane who beats all spitfires, P38s, the hurrys, the P40s, and keeps equal with the P47 and P51..

Yes Willy was the worse plane enginier ever for sure jajaja.

 

 

Just a couple of very quick points, cos I've only had the opportunity to skim your post.

 

1) The Bf 109 G6 wasn't faster than a Spitfire Mk IX, well not as far as I'm aware.  Do you have a source that suggests otherwise?

 

2) Clipped wing Spits and LF Spits were introduced  to counter FW 190's, not 109s.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

It wasn't difficult to take off, but if you left the heel to turn freely, the plane began to turn when speeding up, and the results were often destructive.

 

I like this quote as the same results are seen in game as well. Thanks for posting.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Tripwire

[Livai]

Indeed, the wings of the German aircraft had up to 60% higher drag. This reflects the poor manufacturing standards in Germany at that time.  

Source: http://wp1113056.server-he.de/ABL/20-forschung/laminarfluegel/laminarfluegel_en.htm

[Asgar]

What does the use of laminar flow wings by the Americans have to do with German manufacturing quality? I guess the Russian manufacturing quality was just horse sh*t then because they had no Balkenkreuz on the wings.

Edited October 2, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Holtzauge]

Well regarding if it was the Me-109 or Fw-190 that was outdated, this is what Generalleautnant Adolph Galland & Schmid said at a debriefing conducted in October 1945 at Latimer House, England. The subject of the discussion was "The most important mistakes of the Luftwaffe as seen from the standpoint of the German fighter force", page 232:

 

"In an effort to raise the production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into production with the necessary pressure"........."For this reasonthe Me.109 was not taken out of production for years, although it was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly, the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Tank 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective"

 

Ref: The Luftwaffe fighter force, Adolph Gallan et al, David Ishby,1998.

 

So it looks like in the opinion of Adolph Galland it was the Me-109, not the Fw-190 that was outdated from 1943 on. How about that?

 

 

[Livai]

What does the use of laminar flow wings by the Americans have to do with German manufacturing quality?

 

because the American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the German planes! Here you have the answer why....

 

 I guess the Russian manufacturing quality was just horse sh*t then because they had no Balkenkreuz on the wings.

 

 

From where you take this? The Source to this? You show a claim which is not backed by hyperlinks or other facts just preaching on that nonsense containing profanity!   

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I smell strong propaganda

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I smell strong delusions. 

[Asgar]

ikr, some luftwaffe fans here are just..crazy I did my best to address some of the craziest inaccuracies

And I'm glad you did. Especially all your sources were a good read

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Asgar, its not like initial post written by geramos was rich in factual data either. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Some corrected corrections:

 

 

 G6 wasnt faster than Spitfire IX, it's the other way round. Also, Spitfire IX out-turned all versions of the 109 from E to K models. G6 was the WORST turning of any 109 versions which makes your proposition of g6 being able to outturn a spitfire even more ridiculous.

 

The Mk.IX Top Speed wit B-Type wing was 648kph . This makes it similar to the late G-2/4, slower than early G-2 and faster than the G-6 at "Steig und Kampfleistung". The G-6 still had superior climb and thus acceleration than it's contemporary Mk.IX and at low altitude was clearly better with around 560kph at 2000m against the Mk.IX (M.61) 543kph. 

Since the full power release of the DB605 and the large scale introduction of the later 18lbs Merlins came at the same time, the G-6 doesn't loose any advantages. 

The 109 had superior Roll, the Spitfire may have had a turn advantage. In the end "Jacke wie Hose".

 

Surely it did gain weight over the years, but it was still clearly more agile than ANYTHING the germans had. Pretty close to the original FIIa, actually.

 

What do you identify as "agility"? The 109s definetly had better rate of roll, and so did the 190s. The Mk.IX lost a ton of Agility compared to the Mk.V, but gained the necessary performance to counter the newer german fighters. I'm trying to find the Original Source, but as I remember it the Pilot Compared Mk.V and Mk.IX and found that the Mk.IX couldn't perform many manouvers the Mk.V could, especially low speed manouvers with a combination of Elevators and Ailerons due to bad harmonization and loss of Speed. It was massively improved in performance though. 

 

That's factually incorrect. The RAF operated spitfires from mainland europe in 1944-1945 as the allies advanced.

 

 

Numbers are always just...numbers. They have more to do with tactics. However, if you put a 109 and a spitfire in a 1on1 duel, we all know how that is going to end.

 

With the 109 getting another Victory Mark. 

 

No, you dont, you dont need different wings to combat the 190s either the normal elliptical wing will do just fine.

 

Why were the tips clipped then, if they were just fine? The clipped tips were a direct response to the Fw190s rate of Roll. 

 

Both the spitfire and especially the bubble canopy mustangs had superior view out of the cockpit. No, the p51 armor plate doesnt block the rear view, you can clearly see your tail, unlike in the 109 that has really bad visibility to the rear thanks to that tall tail. 

 

The Spitfire didn't receive Bubbletops until the war was basically over. The P-51Ds and Cs didn't see action until the second half of 1944, up to that point the P-51s were just as Blind. The 109s at that point were virtually universally equipped with Erla Hauben and Galland Panzer.

In terms of visiblity the Yak fighters and P-39s beat all of them though. 

 

Spitfire IX already outclassed all 109Gs, K model being about equal to IX. Spitfire Mk 14, however, outclassed 109K in every aspect. Mk14 was without a doubt the ultimate prop fighter of the war.

 

Nonsense, provable nonsense. No Merlin powered Wartime, Service Spitfire got over 670kph, the same as a 1942 G-2. The K-4s and G-10s and G-14s all were faster than their Spitfire Counterparts, had superior climb etc. using MW50. 

 

Again, thats just factually incorrect, the spitfire WAS the superior fighter thats just a fact, you might not like that but that doesnt change reality.

 

Once again, provable, subjective Nonsense. 

The 109 was MUCH, MUCH, MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH Easier to produce, In terms of Manpower you could build 3 and a half 109s for every Spitfire. 

The 109 could run on much lower Fuel Qualities, giving it much more potential Airtime in a Total War Scenario

The 109 could operate from far shorter airfields, given it's far shorter take-off run, once again an advantage in a War Scenario.

Repairs could be made much more easily and without heavy equipment. 

 

The Spitfire was not a superior Machine of War. It was adequate. In the Air it matched the German Fighters Well, but it required a far stronger support Network than the 109, making it the far more vulnerable. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Dr_Molem]

Blind fanboys are many, on this thread...

[Stig]

In the end it's more about the pilot's ability than the comparative performance of the aircraft.

 

. The Spitfire brought the luftwaffe to its knees.

 

 

So what was the point of even producing the P-51?

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Whilst I enjoy seeing figures thrown about to show how one fighter might outclass another as much as the next guy, this line here is hilarious.

 

 

 

one spitfire could easily handle 3 109s alone

 

[Art]

 

Numbers are always just...numbers. They have more to do with tactics. However, if you put a 109 and a spitfire in a 1on1 duel, we all know how that is going to end.

Total nonsense.

 

No, you dont, you dont need different wings to combat the 190s either the normal elliptical wing will do just fine.

 

So why they did it ? For fun ? :D  ....

 

 

 

 

 

Again, thats just factually incorrect, the spitfire WAS the superior fighter thats just a fact, you might not like that but that doesnt change reality

 

 

 

And ?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I fell for a Troll. Shame on me. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

     this guy can give Turban a run for his money 

haven't laughed that much for Forum "talk" since joining years ago 

 

This guy will feel harsh reality once the Spitfire's are out here and in DCS

Edited October 2, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[YSoMadTovarisch]

     this guy can give Turban a run for his money 

haven't laughed that much for Forum "talk" since joining years ago 

 

This guy will feel harsh reality once the Spitfire's are out here and in DCS

The Spitfire IX in DCS is modeled with 18lbs boost while it should have been modeled with 25lbs boost.

[Dr_Molem]

The Spitfire IX in DCS is modeled with 18lbs boost while it should have been modeled with 25lbs boost.

 

So basically a 1943 Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 ?

 

...

[Kurfurst]

The Spitfire IX in DCS is modeled with 18lbs boost while it should have been modeled with 25lbs boost.

Luckily at least as far DCS goes they do not seem to be buying into 'lets give allies planes some obscure, exceedingly rare boosts to keep fanboys happy' kind of thing some are so keen to push.

 

As it, DCS models all types their most typical late 1944 boost rating. The only one that is somewhat of a matter of prefernce is the 51d, since at least 8th AAF FC used higher ratings.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So, did we already reach the status of another Spitfire vs 109 war ? I must admit, I havent missed that one at all. Saw it already on ubisoft forums, on dcs forums and hell, I cant be sure where I havent seen it. All the same, JG and whatever else 109 fans who cannot stand that there actually existed a better aircraft (yes, there were better designs. Frankly, Messerschmitt itself recognized that 109 airframe was aging, hence projects of Me 209 and 309 seeking to replace it, as well as quite a few Luftwaffe pilots did). And Spitfire fans that desperately have to prove that Spitfire actually turned better or was better than 109. 

 

Why cant people just shake their hands and appreciate both designs ? Either aircraft had its advantages and either had its flaws, neither was good at everything. It's also hard to blame either of the designers of those machines that his design reached its limits by the mid of the war when both were designed in 1930s in quickly changing conditions. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The major problem here is the 'Wonderweapon Syndrome'. No Spitfire (or 109, or P-51, or Fw-190 or etc.) could win the war by itself, and no Spitfire could reliably defeat each and every opponent during every meeting. For most of the war, all contemporary fighters from major nations were all on the same footing, with one or another being marginally better at some (but almost never all) performance parameters. It's the dramatisation of the Battle of Britain and the Allied bomber offensive which creates this imaginary belief that the Spitfire and the Mustang were world-beaters, the same way that German memoirs and victories put the Bf-109 and Fw-190 onto a pedestal. All were adequate for most of their operations service, and all were beaten by their contemporaries in some situations. Galland can complain all he wants but they lost the war when they started it, producing one or fifty more Fw-190s would only change some minor statistical details.

 

There is a famous story of a Bf-109 and a LaGG-3, both flown by aces, who fought for over 45 minutes before both disengaged without landing a hit. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the aircraft, and it certainly didn't prompt the Soviets to cancel all La-5 orders to revert to LaGG-3s.