Bf-109 real life pilots overview

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Both Messerschmitt Manuals you can find in the net for Emil and Gustav say +1° and recommend the later especially for night takeoff?

 

2x translation mistake?

That's not true and you should know it...because.

There is a placard, in the top left side of main panel (even in the game) in the Bf-109 E cockpit, with the take-off and landing configuration of flaps and tailplane trim.

It say "for take off":

Flaps position: 20º; Tailplane position: 0º (ZERO) 

 

 

Note that that the placard, show a landing configuration with Flaps position: 40º, but without any number for tailplane, because in acording with fuel load, aircraft need about -3º (with fuel tank almost full) or ; -6º (for fuel tank almost empty and none munition weight).

 

...Do you find it?

 

 

 

Please, If you have a original manual (not a bad translation) of the Bf-109E, with information different than airplane cockpit placard, that i show now, link here.

 

My conclusion is that in all bf-109´s the trim model, is completely wrong, after the patch 2.012.,

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[LukeFF]

All this drama over one degree on a trim wheel. 

[Jizzo]

 

That's not true and you should know it...because.

There is a placard, in the top left side of main panel (even in the game) in the Bf-109 E cockpit, with the take-off and landing configuration of flaps and tailplane trim.

It say "for take off":

Flaps position: 20º; Tailplane position: 0º (ZERO) 

 

 

Note that that the placard, show a landing configuration with Flaps position: 40º, but without any number for tailplane, because in acording with fuel load, aircraft need about -3º (with fuel tank almost full) or ; -6º (for fuel tank almost empty and none munition weight).

 

...Do you find it?

 

 

 

Please, If you have a original manual (not a bad translation) of the Bf-109E, with information different than airplane cockpit placard, that i show now, link here.

 

My conclusion is that in all bf-109´s the trim model, is completely wrong, after the patch 2.012.,

 

 

 http://www.deutschel.../Bf 109 G-2.pdf page 12 and http://www.deutschel... e Handbuch.pdf page 6.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

To help clear this up I compared multiple variants of the 109 I that had documentation for in terms of the proposed trim setting for takeoff. I can provide the sources if requested.

 

  Model          Trim Setting*

Bf 109 D              +1°

Bf 109 E           0° to +1°

Bf 109 G2       around +1°

Bf 109 G2              0°

 

*the +1° trim setting referrs to 1° nose heavy.

 

Conclusion: The standard trim setting for the Bf 109 for takeoff ranges from 0° to +1°.

Edited September 10, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Jizzo]

Might have a typo on the 2x G2 there, other than that i guess it's what the "majority" is trying to agree on.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Might have a typo on the 2x G2 there, other than that i guess it's what the "majority" is trying to agree on.

Not a typo. The first one is referring to the Bf 109 G-2 Bedienungsvorschrift Fl from Jun 1942 while the second to referrs to the Bf 109 G Exerzierkarte from Dec 1942

[Jizzo]

My bad, sorry.

[indiaciki]

The Finnish states 3 for take off. English translation. It might be the K.

 

I think the russian evaluation ef the E says 0

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by indiaciki

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

The Finnish states 3 for take off. English translation. It might be the K.

 

I think the russian evaluation ef the E says 0

No my friend, three degrees of trim for takeoff in a Bf-109 is a wild thing! ..in both cases nose-up, and nose down.

After a little investigation last week, i ´ve found, some magazine articles, and flight report in a book, from four actual pilots who flown Bf-109, or "Buchon" recently.

The four pilots said the same, they trimmed the aircraft one degree nose-up for take off.

This pilots are:

1/ Volker Bau (Flugmuseum Messerschmitt, Test pilot Airbus Helicopters) He flew the Bf-109 G4 "Red-7"

 

 

 

 

2/ Dave Southwood (ex-RAF Test Pilot) Fliying the Bf-109G2/trop. "Black-6"

 

 

 

3/ Clifford "Cliff" Spink (RAF Air Marshal, warbirds pilot expert) he flew the Ha-1112 "Buchon" G-BWUE painted as "Black-2" in the film Dunkirk 

 

 

 

 

4/ Robert "Rob" Erdos, (ex-RCAF pilot, Chief Experimental Test Pilot NRC)  He flew the Bf-109E, C-FEML, "white-14"

 

 

[

 

 

 

If four famous pilots said that they trimmed the 109 nose-up for take off, ... it must be, the right manner to do it.  What do you think?

Edited September 14, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Guest deleted@50488]

When Rob Erdos writes:

 

"Okay, pause.  I checked that the flaps were set to 20°, set the trim to one degree UP" I really can't say he isn't referring to the fact that the whole stabilator moves UP 1º, which is consistent with a nose heavy instead of tail heavy trimming...

 

We also can't say if he's thinking UP as "+"....

 

Truth is, some manuals recommend setting the trim at +1 or even +2, not -1...

 

Also, Klaus Plaza told me he used +1 and as wheels were retracted and flaps came up, further nose heavy trim was required in the G-4 ( Red Seven ).

Edited September 15, 2017 by jcomm

[E69_geramos109]

When Rob Erdos writes:

 

"Okay, pause.  I checked that the flaps were set to 20°, set the trim to one degree UP" I really can't say he isn't referring to the fact that the whole stabilator moves UP 1º, which is consistent with a nose heavy instead of tail heavy trimming...

 

We also can't say if he's thinking UP as "+"....

 

Truth is, some manuals recommend setting the trim at +1 or even +2, not -1...

 

Also, Klaus Plaza told me he used +1 and as wheels were retracted and flaps came up, further nose heavy trim was required in the G-4 ( Red Seven ).

With up they are saying nose up and that is position -1 You have on you tube and on this post about Volker Bau (the pilot of the red 7) confused exactly about the same because he didn´t  realice about that when he operates te trim but he says that is sure about triming nose up for take off. He makes even the moove with the hand on the interview so Klaus Plaza is possibly confused also with that like Volker. 

You have like 4 test pilots saying that not only one and you have the manual of the G (the german one not the translation) saying that they use 0. NEVER nose down. 

 

I can´t understand why something that was right previously now is wrong based on a mistake of a translation on some manual and this is just more valid that what the pilots say...

[Jizzo]

You and others are constantly talking about bad translation errors in some documents.

 

Yet mostly all documents posted here are german originals that say 0 or +1° not -1° and you actually never showed some of your "mistakes of translation" reference documents, nor have they been refered to by others in this thread as far as i can tell.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by [TWB]Jizzo

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

You and others are constantly talking about bad translation errors in some documents.

 

Yet mostly all documents posted here are german originals that say 0 or +1° not -1° and you actually never showed some of your "mistakes of translation" reference documents, nor have they been refered to by others in this thread as far as i can tell.

 

We don't knows if internet document are original or restored, or re-typed. Some old german manuals were printed in gothic letters.. We must confirmed with the pilots before stated something, ..and the pilots are not confirming at the moment.

A sign "minus" or "plus" is easy to mistake in old document in poor readable condition.

Edited September 15, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Jizzo]

We don't knows if internet document are original or restored, or re-typed. Some old german manuals were printed in gothic letters.. We must confirmed with the pilots before stated something, ..and the pilots are not confirming at the moment.

A sign "minus" or "plus" is easy to mistake in old document in poor readable condition.

You are funny, i like you.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

You are funny, i like you

By the way, if you need trim the aircraft +1 when it is loaded with external fuel tank, gunpods, etc, that is nothig to do with normal fuel load, and centered trim configuration at cruise speed and cruise power. 

At the monent i only found an article what a pilot he used "+1 trim for take off", he is Mark Hannah (killed in a Buchon accident years ago) .when fliying a Bf-109 G-10, but after take off during his flight he stated that the aircraft had a tendency to NOSE DOWN when speed increase.

. Due to he trimmed +1 (nose down) or not?. Actually in game, have we that nose-down tendency when trimmed the Bf-109 at +1º nose down?... after the v.2.012 patch, i think no.

Edited September 15, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[707shap_Srbin]

Bf109E trials.

 

Note heavy controls on speed over 250 mph.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Bf109E trials.

 

Note heavy controls on speed over 250 mph.

 

If you read the text again  , .. they estated:

 

""...it is to be particularly stressed that the controls of this aeroplane are pleasantly light at all speeds up to about 250 m.p.h.[400 km/h] and then appear to tighten up very suddenly so that, as stated above, at hight speed they are practically immovable.""

 

It's very funny read this British report, because the Spitfire was more controls heavy in the roll axis that the Bf-109 especially at high speed, in according with RAF wartime comparison test reports.

By the way .."high speed" in a Bf-109 is more than 700 Km/h (438 m.p.h) ..   

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

It seems you've highlighted everything but the most relevant detail:

 

"...it is to be particularly stressed that the controls of this aeroplane are pleasantly light at all speeds up to about 250 m.p.h.[400 km/h] and then appear to tighten up very suddenly so that, as stated above, at high speed they are practically immovable."

What do you understand for "the controls of this aeroplane are pleasantly light"??

I think that, when they say "then appear to tighten up very suddenly" not means that the controls become more heavy than a Spifire or other airplanes.

Am i right or not?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You're not. In the La-5 evaluations for example they simply note controls get heavier at speed but using additional force solves it. Here you have, quoting, practically immovable. It's a known characteristic of this airframe.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

At what speed 109 controls get practically immovable? Was it about over 700kmh

 

Maybe this is helpful

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Hochgeschwindigkeits_Versuche_Me109.pdf

[Holtzauge]

If the elevator control forces on the Me-109 were such s big problem and hindered the airplane’s effective usage, why don’t we have a lot of pilot anecdotes from the pilots who actually flew them in earnest (Germans, Finns etc.) complaining? Why is it only those who evaluated them as enemy planes who are so vociferous? Fixing a too heavy elevator is not exactly rocket science and if it really was a problem you can be sure the RLM would have been on it and it would have been addressed sometime between 1939 and 1945. However it never was. Most likely because it was not seen as problem…..

[LLv24_Zami]

If the elevator control forces on the Me-109 were such s big problem and hindered the airplane’s effective usage, why don’t we have a lot of pilot anecdotes from the pilots who actually flew them in earnest (Germans, Finns etc.) complaining? Why is it only those who evaluated them as enemy planes who are so vociferous? Fixing a too heavy elevator is not exactly rocket science and if it really was a problem you can be sure the RLM would have been on it and it would have been addressed sometime between 1939 and 1945. However it never was. Most likely because it was not seen as problem…..

It was a problem at very high speeds, Juutilainen for example saved himself with a very steep dive from La-5s and had to use full trim to recover. But the speed was quite high probably. 

[Holtzauge]

Yes and no one is contesting it was problem at very high speeds. However, how fast was he going? Remember the German Me-109 flight manual gives the max IAS as 750 km/h IIRC. Now would you allow an IAS from which it was impossible to pull out from as an allowable speed? I don't think so. Sure, you would probably have to pull pretty hard at that IAS but then how often would you have flown there? Most combat probably took place at substantially lower IAS than that.

[LLv24_Zami]

Yes and no one is contesting it was problem at very high speeds. However, how fast was he going? Remember the German Me-109 flight manual gives the max IAS as 750 km/h IIRC. Now would you allow an IAS from which it was impossible to pull out from as an allowable speed? I don't think so. Sure, you would probably have to pull pretty hard at that IAS but then how often would you have flown there? Most combat probably took place at substantially lower IAS than that.

Yes, of course those diving escapes was extreme conditions, it was to save your life. I can`t remember exactly how fast he dived because I don`t have any sources at hand but I`d say it is more than 750km/h. 

[III/JG2Gustav05]

109 has heavy control at speed that is for sure but is it really heavy like what we have in current BOX, British guy has such comment in their report is only because they are used to the extremely  light control of spitfire.  Remember someone mentioned that still can pull 5g at 600-700kph with two hands in 109. if 109 is so heavy like the latest path presents, Hartmann must have lost his life by air collision with his famous tactic - not open fire until within 50 meters.

[indiaciki]

Basically, you should be able to take off and land any light fighter with neutral trim an without any flaps. They help, of course but they are not essential. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Maybe this is helpful

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Hochgeschwindigkeits_Versuche_Me109.pdf

This is all you need. It records the force required to pull the aircraft out of a dive with and without preadjusted trim. No need to speculate using captured aircraft reports.

 

Also keep in mind that from 650km/h onwards the 109 started to suffer from compressebility which is not simulated ingame unfortunately.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

109 has heavy control at speed that is for sure but is it really heavy like what we have in current BOX, British guy has such comment in their report is only because they are used to the extremely light control of spitfire. Remember someone mentioned that still can pull 5g at 600-700kph with two hands in 109. if 109 is so heavy like the latest path presents, Hartmann must have lost his life by air collision with his famous tactic - not open fire until within 50 meters.

Book: Flying to the Limit: Testing WW II Single-engined Fighters

BF109 F/G stiff and hard to operate elevator and ailerons above 350 mph IAS, stabilizer practically not possible to operate...

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Book: Flying to the Limit: Testing WW II Single-engined Fighters

BF109 F/G stiff and hard to operate elevator and ailerons above 350 mph IAS, stabilizer practically not possible to operate...

Note that 350 mph is near to 600 Km/h !! ..and the Spitfire was harder in ailerons than Bf-109. What are we talking about??.

Btw. In the German dive test of they found a problem in the Stabilizer screw jack sieze, due to grease congelation at 10000 m altitude before the dive. This problem never have reported in the RAF tests of the Bf-109. Finally the Germans changes the grease for other anti-ice grease after the test.

Edited September 18, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[303_Kwiatek]

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

 

Me 109 G:
"-Someone asked of the top speed of the Me. Mr Väinö Pokela told earlier it's 720 km/h, when I interviewed him.
Normally we flew the Me at 500 km/h, but at a tough spot we could go some 600 km/h. But the absolute speed limit is found in dive. I had to do some over 900 km/h dives. The speedometer scale ends at 900, and at that you feel the flutter effect in the wings. Guess it was very near the top speed, when the plane felt like falling apart."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot.

 

The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing. Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109"

 

- Versuchs-Bericht Nr 109 05 E 43 - Date 15.4.43
This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15° it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...

 

Me 109 E-4:
"During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor,

 

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
We had also Lauri Mäittälä, he took (unclear tape), he had to evade and exceeded the speed, and the rudders broke off. He fell in a well in the Isthmus. He was later collected from there, he's now there in Askola cemetery.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories.

 

During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials

 

hrough the eyes of the enemy - possibly Me 109 G:
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

 

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. I was all sweaty. At that time the Me's were new to us."
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank."
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories.

 

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

[303_Kwiatek]

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Note that 350 mph is near to 600 Km/h !! ..and the Spitfire was harder in ailerons than Bf-109. What are we talking about??.

Btw. In the German dive test of they found a problem in the Stabilizer screw jack sieze, due to grease congelation at 10000 m altitude before the dive. This problem never have reported in the RAF tests of the Bf-109. Finally the Germans changes the grease for other anti-ice grease after the test.

563 IAS kph isn't almost 600 kph. It's stated that elevator and ailerons stiffness build up during speed increase and above 350 mph become hard to operate.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

563 IAS kph isn't almost 600 kph. It's stated that elevator and ailerons stiffness build up during speed increase and above 350 mph become hard to operate.

"During speed increase"??  .. then it is more than 600 km/h ...yes or not??

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

"During speed increase"?? .. then it is more than 600 km/h ...yes or not??

Wrong question & all know answer. Good questions is how much stiffer it is at 600kph if from 350 mph (563 kph) it's hard to operate. Edited September 18, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[LukeFF]

Me 109 G-2/G-6:

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?

"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.

 

And your point is?

 

Facts are what will change things here, not feelings and you sticking out your tongue.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Wrong question & all know answer. Good questions is how much stiffer it is at 600kph if from 350 mph (563 kph) it's hard to operate.

"hard to operate" ?? ..how "hard to operate"?? ..we know that Spitfire was more "hard to operate" the ailerons than Bf-109. How hard to operate in pounds, or kilos are you talking about??. That is a subjetive opinion of the RAF pilot who test that Bf-109E.

Edited September 18, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

"hard to operate" ?? ..how "hard to operate"?? ..we know that Spitfire was more "hard to operate" the ailerons than Bf-109. How hard to operate in pounds, or kilos are you talking about??. That is a subjetive opinion of the RAF pilot who test that Bf-109E.

This pilot subjective opinion is no different as yours subjective opinion flying virtual 109. And "we know" about spitfire hard to operate ailerons - jet another subjective opinion but this one you accept without doubt. Edited September 18, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Kurfurst]

It was a problem at very high speeds, Juutilainen for example saved himself with a very steep dive from La-5s and had to use full trim to recover. But the speed was quite high probably. 

 

As they used to say, its a feature, not a bug. You have to enter the dive as prescribed in the manual, i.e. trim the plane so that it stays in the dive only by pushing the stick ahead. This basically lets the trimmed and very effective horizontal stabilise does the diving recovery for you. 

 

Check out the 109G flight manual with the testing results of a (virtually identical in this and many other respect) 109F for confirmation. 420 mph IAS is pretty close to the the permissible Vne of the 109G...

 

Slow to react due to the large forces on the controls? Definietely yes and your instantanous turn rate will suffer for it... impossible to recover? Well, the "fairly tight turns still possible" statement is hardly an indication of that.

Edited September 19, 2017 by VO101Kurfurst

[LLv24_Zami]

As they used to say, its a feature, not a bug. You have to enter the dive as prescribed in the manual, i.e. trim the plane so that it stays in the dive only by pushing the stick ahead. This basically lets the trimmed and very effective horizontal stabilise does the diving recovery for you. 

 

Check out the 109G flight manual with the testing results of a (virtually identical in this and many other respect) 109F for confirmation. 420 mph IAS is pretty close to the the permissible Vne of the 109G...

 

Slow to react due to the large forces on the controls? Definietely yes and your instantanous turn rate will suffer for it... impossible to recover? Well, the "fairly tight turns still possible" statement is hardly an indication of that.

Yes, the word "problem" used by me is a wrong choice for this but I`m not a native english speaker so these things happen. 

 

I didn´t say that it`s impossible to recover. Many pilots did a very high speed dives and lived to tell us about it.

[Solty]

You want fairly tight turns? Trim it up. That is the best 109 FM I saw in sims. The plane is really easy to fly and an amazing gun platform. You understand why Germans did not want to dogfight in it. They preferred speed and speed makes you stiff. 109F4 though is an excellent dogfighter and very maneuverable up to 400kph. We all have the documents, they show what is in BOS.

 

One thing I find odd is how easy to take of and land it is. The torque is barely there.

Edited September 19, 2017 by =LD=Solty