Dogfight Me109 vs Spitfire video seen?

[jollyjack]

Just came across this docu, but you might have seen it ... all about the differences, and funny enough it's filed as 'comedy':

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTrygZfC-g

Edited September 4, 2019 by jollyjack

[InProgress]

It's very bad video... but it has a nice part in it. There was discussion about 109 landings. In 9:21 we have german pilot saying how it really was.

@MeoW.Scharfi

[bzc3lk]

Another link about Willy and why his aircraft had their certain idiosyncrasies . The interesting thing that was highlighted, was the known "excessive elevator stick input requirements" and how it was raised by the test pilots and swept under the carpet by the designer, never to be spoken of again. Willy's design philosophy  of engineering the aircraft to the bare minimum structurally could well be portrayed by the dev's 109 damage model integrity,   perceived by some in the community to be made of "glass". This video made me look at the 109 from a different perspective.

 

 

[InProgress]

@bzc3lk

Very interesting video. They also mentioned there about 30% losses just during training. It was really deadly plane for new pilots

[MeoW.Scharfi]

9 hours ago, InProgress said:

It's very bad video... but it has a nice part in it. There was discussion about 109 landings. In 9:21 we have german pilot saying how it really was.

@MeoW.Scharfi

 

"He also thinks that more german pilots were lost through landings/take offs than through enemy attacks."

 

Sure..  ?‍♀️

 

 

[InProgress]

6 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

"He also thinks that more german pilots were lost through landings/take offs than through enemy attacks."

 

Sure..  ?‍♀️

 

 

C'mon negative nancy xD he said as far as he knows. He could be referring to his unit only as well. And even if not, he still was there and saw new pilots crashing or getting killed during errors in landing/take off. He did not make that up, why would he? The other video also mentions 30% fatality during training only!! It's not some one shady source thing. 

 

I actually have this guy book. He was really believing in 3rd reich. That part about losing more during training than battle can be simply a little "bias" on his side. Does not change a fact that losses of new pilots must have been high.

 

"Betrayed Ideals. Memoirs of a Luftwaffe Fighter Ace" if interested.

[Buzzsaw]

There were significant trainee pilot losses for those whose first experience of a combat aircraft was a 109.  The Focke Wulf 190A was far easier to take off and land in despite the fact it had a higher stall speed... the plane was far more robustly built and happily tolerated the higher speed landings... broken undercarriages were few... and had widely set undercarriage that meant the chances of a ground loop was far less.

 

But many of the 109 crashes were in the later stages of the war when the number of hours the trainees had on the basic trainers fell off considerably because of lack of aviation petrol.

 

At the early stages of the war when pilots had lots of time in the basic trainer Bucker Bu-31 Jungmann and the advanced trainer Arado 96's prior to converting to the 109's the accident rate was lower.

 

At the start of the war a Luftwaffe pilot entered combat service with 400+ hours in training aircraft.  By the end of the war it was 125 hours.

 

The British and Americans through most of the war were over 400 hours... many American pilots had 500 +.  The British were actually lower than the Germans in 1940 during the BoB period.... they were desperate to get new pilots in the air and some pilots had only around 250 hours.

 

But a Hurricane or Spitfire was far easier to fly than a 109 for an inexperienced pilot.