Are you a 190 guy or 109?

[vonGraf]

16 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Haha, me too still in Russia '41, will probs be there quite a while, now buying Moscow deluxe planes for some change ?

 

I'm trying to play chronologically but had a short try on Stalingrad career (until April '42) after I bought BoS. Didn't see there's a earlier theater (BoM) available.

Now I'm playing in Pat's campaign generator on the Moscow front almost exclusively and it's only Christmas '41. 

[messsucher]

21 minutes ago, vonGraf said:

 

I'm trying to play chronologically but had a short try on Stalingrad career (until April '42) after I bought BoS. Didn't see there's a earlier theater (BoM) available.

Now I'm playing in Pat's campaign generator on the Moscow front almost exclusively and it's only Christmas '41. 

 

GG, sounds like you are going to make it. Is Pat's generator significant upgrade? I think I begin to see very repeated pattern in the standard campaign generator.

[-Six-IAmLordeYaYaYa]

On 3/28/2020 at 12:37 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

The most important weaknesses of the 109 (awful handling on the ground), short range and bad armament don't really come to play in a game.

There's a reason why most pilots preferred the 190 - Germans and Allied - and why the 190A-2 was considered better than the 109F-4 in 1942.

 

The reason why the 190 attacked the bombers was because it could, while the 109 lacked the fire-power. Who believes the 190 didn't have the oompf to fight with allied fighters is quite mislead.

The 109 was still produced in large quantities because ole Willy had very good ties with the Nazi party leadership. That's the only reason why 1944 and 1945 saw large-scale 109 production. Well that and because ole Willy lobbied against newer and better fighters to be produced and tested. Such as the DB603/ Jumo 213-powered Fw 190, which could have been available in 1943. But ole Willy tried to wring more ca$h out of his 1935 race-plane, instead of providing a better airframe.

Idk really if irl pilots preferred the 190 more.. Most famous and successful German and Finnish aces that i know surely preferred the 109 heavily.

On 3/28/2020 at 7:50 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

While the 109 is an aerodynamic marvel, the 190 is the better weapon of war - no doubt!

 

An expert might have gotten  better results with 109's but for the average pilot the 190 would have been a much better choice. 

 

And I now think to remember that what I read about the lacking anti fighter capabilities of the 190 at high altitude was especially about sturmböcke. 

 

And the D9 in '43 would have been a definite improvement over the G6. 

 

But the 109s very successfully attacked the fortresses as well - although they had to force land more often as the db605s didn't survive the counter fire. 

 

That high alt mod you mention is interesting - I've never heard of it. But why wasn't there widespread use, when the usual combat height in 43/44 was around 7000m?

Good point, for the average Luftwaffe pilot the 190 was probably indeed the better choice, atleast i think.

[messsucher]

1 hour ago, NoU said:

dk really if irl pilots preferred the 190 more.. Most famous and successful German and Finnish aces that i know surely preferred the 109 heavily.

 

Finnish pilots did not have the choice. They had no 190s.

[vonGraf]

11 hours ago, messsucher said:

Is Pat's generator significant upgrade?

 

It's an extra layer of 'realism', I think

For me the plus is that there are always fights with tanks/cannons on the ground, much more other planes in the air and in my campaigns I have an escort when doing ground attacks with the 109 or 110.This is not the case in the standard career.

The hostile ground forces are sometimes mentioned as additional 'target of opportunity' in the briefing of a patrol mission, that's nice too.

And your'e not awarded for the kills of your backseat gunner in the 110. 

The AI is the same.

 

[-Six-IAmLordeYaYaYa]

7 hours ago, messsucher said:

 

Finnish pilots did not have the choice. They had no 190s.

True, they didn't have 190's. But didn't the Finnish government get to choose between the two? 109's were after all more expensive, or were they simply gifted without request?

[messsucher]

1 hour ago, NoU said:

True, they didn't have 190's. But didn't the Finnish government get to choose between the two? 109's were after all more expensive, or were they simply gifted without request?

 

I don't know, but I doubt Finnish government had a say on which they get. I think WF were not sold or given to any nation.

 

Edit: Would be nice if people told why they preferred which. I can tell I prefer WF because it looks like very perfect fighter, I prefer to fly low, and it is good in Jabo missions.

Edited October 21, 2020 by messsucher

[Bremspropeller]

12 hours ago, NoU said:

Most famous and successful German and Finnish aces that i know surely preferred the 109 heavily.

 

The Finns never got the 190. The "Most famous" german aces mostly flew in the East, which had a 109-bias.

 

Not really too much choice in picking airframes.

[percydanvers]

I really, really want to be a 190 guy, but honestly I hate how it flies. The strictness with which you have to adhere to boom n' zoom tactics feels like being in a straight jacket to me. I just can't get into it. Unless we're talking 1942-43 it's just not that fast to where I can boom n' zoom with it effectively. That said I still want to love the 190. Everyone speaks of it so glowingly and I admire its firepower. If, as the saying goes, you should chose the mission and not the plane, I should prefer the 190 because I love ground attack, but after three-ish years of flying them pretty regularly in IL-2 and in DCS I've never really been able to adapt to the way it flies.

Meanwhile, I love the 109's ability to vary its fighting style according to the situation it's in. I never feel empty-handed with a 109. Things that are faster than me tend to be less maneuverable, things that are more maneuverable tend to be slower than me. Even against superior aircraft it feels like you have some tool to work with. The centerline cannon is just amazing to use. It's like flying a sniper rifle with the kinds of accuracy you can achieve with it. It may be less durable than a 190 but I usually find that I'm less often in a situation of taking damage at all in a 109 because of its ability to maneuver. All that said the comparatively limited firepower/ammo capacity of the 109 is a major drawback for me. As I mentioned, I don't like sticking to a strict air-to-air role, and there's no doubt I'd achieve more in my bouts of ground pounding with a 190, so I'll continue to vacillate between the two and try to learn to love the 190. My heart will always be with the 109 though.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, percydanvers said:

I really, really want to be a 190 guy, but honestly I hate how it flies. The strictness with which you have to adhere to boom n' zoom tactics feels like being in a straight jacket to me. I just can't get into it. Unless we're talking 1942-43 it's just not that fast to where I can boom n' zoom with it effectively. That said I still want to love the 190. Everyone speaks of it so glowingly and I admire its firepower. If, as the saying goes, you should chose the mission and not the plane, I should prefer the 190 because I love ground attack, but after three-ish years of flying them pretty regularly in IL-2 and in DCS I've never really been able to adapt to the way it flies.

Meanwhile, I love the 109's ability to vary its fighting style according to the situation it's in. I never feel empty-handed with a 109. Things that are faster than me tend to be less maneuverable, things that are more maneuverable tend to be slower than me. Even against superior aircraft it feels like you have some tool to work with. The centerline cannon is just amazing to use. It's like flying a sniper rifle with the kinds of accuracy you can achieve with it. It may be less durable than a 190 but I usually find that I'm less often in a situation of taking damage at all in a 109 because of its ability to maneuver. All that said the comparatively limited firepower/ammo capacity of the 109 is a major drawback for me. As I mentioned, I don't like sticking to a strict air-to-air role, and there's no doubt I'd achieve more in my bouts of ground pounding with a 190, so I'll continue to vacillate between the two and try to learn to love the 190. My heart will always be with the 109 though.

 

Boom and zoom in it and use the excellent roll capabilities. The zoom portion is more of a climbing extention than a true vertical movement. Don't rely on the elevator as much as the 109 for sure. Barrel rolls offensively and rolling scissors defensively are your friends. 

[=TBAS=jamesirjames]

Just started playing BOS and its add-on expansions.  I have a couple hundred hours in career mode and probably another 100 in quick missions.  I've experimented with all the fighters in quick mission and I feel exactly the same way.  To put it bluntly, the 109 (F-4/2's to be exact} are "easier" to pilot.  The 190's (A-5 is my preference as I don't have Dora} is quirky and can be deadly.  Obviously, I haven't mastered either.  I love the power and roll-rate of the 190, it's just too tempermental for my liking.  At the moment, the 109 is my go-to even though I want the 190 to be #1.

[percydanvers]

On 2/17/2021 at 2:22 AM, jamesirjames said:

Just started playing BOS and its add-on expansions.  I have a couple hundred hours in career mode and probably another 100 in quick missions.  I've experimented with all the fighters in quick mission and I feel exactly the same way.  To put it bluntly, the 109 (F-4/2's to be exact} are "easier" to pilot.  The 190's (A-5 is my preference as I don't have Dora} is quirky and can be deadly.  Obviously, I haven't mastered either.  I love the power and roll-rate of the 190, it's just too tempermental for my liking.  At the moment, the 109 is my go-to even though I want the 190 to be #1.

Exactly my situation. I notice I tend to destroy a lot more enemy targets of all types with the 190, but I get killed flying it more often. It's better in many ways, but more stressful to fly. IMO the D9 is even more finnicky in terms of stall characteristics, but the increased speed makes such a positive difference for it

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

On 2/17/2021 at 12:22 AM, jamesirjames said:

Just started playing BOS and its add-on expansions.  I have a couple hundred hours in career mode and probably another 100 in quick missions.  I've experimented with all the fighters in quick mission and I feel exactly the same way.  To put it bluntly, the 109 (F-4/2's to be exact} are "easier" to pilot.  The 190's (A-5 is my preference as I don't have Dora} is quirky and can be deadly.  Obviously, I haven't mastered either.  I love the power and roll-rate of the 190, it's just too tempermental for my liking.  At the moment, the 109 is my go-to even though I want the 190 to be #1.

 

109's are definitely easier to fly. You can use a 109 mostly like a 190 and find success but you will struggle mightily to use a 190 like a 109.

[JG7_X-Man]

Both!

[Mightyrobert]

Mom, dad? Both ?

[ZM12CR8]

There are certainly many good reasons in favor of one or the other aircraft. The actual performance in the air and in combat is certainly a decisive factor.

But there are so many other reasons as well.

When the ME 109 was developed, it was certainly one of the best fighters of the time in terms of performance.

It was full of innovations. Above all, the powerful injection motor with the maintenance-friendly upside down installation.

But above all, it was designed so that it could be built in large numbers in a wide variety of locations on relativ low costs. And it was also easy to maintain and repair.

At a time when it took almost two days to replace an engine in America, a good team of mechanics could do it on the 109 in 12 minutes!

There was also a guaranteed supply of spare parts. A wide variety of assemblies were manufactured in various locations around the country. From 44 also in underground facilities and bombproof.

Production was able to increase to record numbers in 1944, when the Reich had already largely been bombed to a clump.

The aspect of the war economy plays a decisive role here.

 

I don't know which plane is better. But I know that the 109 was the standard fighter of the German Luftwaffe and that the 109 had by far the most kills in air combat. From young recruits to old hands, they flew 109.

Flying the 109 in a simulation means for me to get at least a vague impression of the actual performance of an average pilot of that time. What it means to take off and land again with a 109 and even shoot down up to 7 enemy planes in between, as the best actually did.

For me, the ME 109 is something like the Volkswagen of the air. And the best Pilots, such as Rall, Hartmann, Marseille and also thousands of less well-known Pilots, got into a Volkswagen, started a race and won.

By the way. I like the 109 and think she is an absolute beauty.

 

OK, i´m a 109´er

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'd like to see your source for a 12 minute engine change. I've been in aviation a long time and just getting the panels on and off in 12 minutes could be considered something of a feat.

[ZM12CR8]

1 minute ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I'd like to see your source for a 12 minute engine change. I've been in aviation a long time and just getting the panels on and off in 12 minutes could be considered something of a feat.

i would also like to find that source again. I will let you know, when i found.

I read it  years ago.

I try to tell the story as best I can from memory. In the late thirties, an American pilot (or other aircraft specialist) must have been given the opportunity to view an ME 109 and get information about it. Back in the States, he is said to have said in a general manner: Dress warmly. The Krauts have a fighter where they are able to replace the engine in 12 minutes. But even if the 12 minutes are an exaggeration. The reason for the closely spaced chassis was the fact that the engine was attached to it and the ME 109 was known for its maintenance and repair-friendly design. And it was definitely an advantage that you could change the engine very quickly.

maybe I am wrong with 12 minutes and 12 hours. I don't want to write nonsense.

[Aurora_Stealth]

I think you're pretty close to the mark @ZM12CR8, the official line I typically hear is approximately 30 minutes for an engine change, provided you have the spares available, and the small lift crane and equipment handy. I imagine that could vary a little, depending on how much manpower and advance notice you had to support.

 

They did indeed make a very conscious effort however to design the '109 to have quick release panels rather than just using screws everywhere and tried to minimise tooling required to aid this process.

 

Rearming the aircraft was also a very quick procedure for similar reasons, and its not too surprising why they considered this important... considering the very high tempo of operations they were planning for in the 1939 - 1940 period. They wanted to be mobile and flexible in every way.

 

Also as a caveat, while ease-of-manufacture and ease-of-accessibility were definitely concepts they were using in the design - late in the war (1944) Germany seemed to assign little manufacturing time to creating dedicated spares... in some part due to the emphasis by 1944 on increasing the number of new build production fighters under Albert Speer's plan. That's why quite a few 109 airframes in the last years of the war ended up just being cannibalised for parts at airfields.

 

I think I know the man you're looking for... Al Williams (USMC), when discussing his flight in a Bf 109 D-1 on 15th July 1938. He was introduced to the aircraft with Ernst Udet at the Fiesler works at Kassel where the D model was being licence built. Sorry, i've pasted the whole lot out of interest, the paragraph you want is at the bottom. I found it a fascinating read when I came across it years ago. Also the renowned Charles Lindbergh reported similar things and was equally direct about its simplicity and performance.

 

‘After inspecting the local plant, we came upon the Bf 109 that was waiting for me. This was my first chance really to study the gadgets and instruments in its cockpit. Each was christened with a name that ranged anywhere from an inch to an inch and a half in length. None of them meant anything to me, and I was compelled to identify their location and their uses by following the instructions of the patient chap who explained them to me...

 

I stalled around a bit, until I became somewhat familiarised with the gadgets and controls, retractable landing gear, controllable pitch propeller switch, auxiliary hand pumps, manually controlled flaps, and the various gauges and main and reserve gasoline cut off valves. Standing still, the controls were light and delicate to the touch. The engine sounded like a dream, no rattling or vibrating as in the case of air cooled radials. This was a 12 cylinder in-line job, and it ran like a watch.

 

Fixing my parachute in place and snuggling down for the ride ahead, I taxied out into the field. There’s never a moment when the pilot of a new ship is not keenly alert for the chance of learning something about that ship’s performance. Many times it’s only a hint, but many times, indeed, that hint is all sufficient to keep him out of trouble. The ground control was excellent. Without using the wheel brakes on the way out to the takeoff position, I found that a propeller blast on the rudder brought a surprisingly pleasant reaction, in spite of the fact that the vertical fin and the rudder were both rather small. The takeoff was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire.

 

I have my own little formula to be followed in flying a new ship, and I stick to it religiously. Leaving the landing gear extended, I climbed up to about a thousand feet, set the propeller blades at the required high pitch, checked the engine instruments, and then slowed the engine down. The air speed indicator of course, was calibrated in kilometres. I slowed the ship down to about 130 kilometres, pulled the nose of the ship up, and let it fall away. Repeating the motion again by pulling the nose of the ship up this time beyond the stalling angle, I watched it sink evenly and steadily, with no hint of crankiness.

 

Flying along at about 20 miles above stalling speed, the ailerons had excellent control along with a fully effective rudder and elevator. This was all I could ask. A few turns to the right and to the left at reduced speed, a couple of sideslips, and I was ready to come in for my first landing. It has always been my practice, irrespective of the new type of ship I’m flying, to takeoff, go through such procedures to become adjusted to its flight characteristics, and then go around for the first landing within two minutes after takeoff. This is to make sure at least one routine approach for a landing while the engine is still good.

 

I was amazed when I brought down the Messerschmitt around, tipped it over to one side and slid toward the ground. Levelling out we got away with a three point landing with the air speed indicator reading about 105 kilometres per hour. The Bf 109 was an easy ship to fly, and with one landing behind me, we went to work – or rather to play.

 

For the first takeoff, I had set the flaps at about 15 degrees to facilitate the takeoff. On the way in for a landing I found that 20 degrees on the flaps was a more suitable angle of attack. The controls, sensitive ailerons, and tail group were fully effective to the time the wheels touched the ground. So much for that. This, after all, was supposed to be an outstanding single seater fighter, and in the half hour allowed me, I was determined to find out if the Messerschmitt was or was not what it was cracked up to be.

 

The supercharger boost gauge was calibrated in atmospheres instead of inches of mercury. I recall a little difficulty in remembering what my instructor had told me about the permissible supercharge boost at low altitudes. I said this Messerschmitt was fast. The Germans had said so, too, to the tune of 350 to 360 mph, and their claims were demonstrated to be accurate. It is also interesting to note in 1940, that the British concede the Messerschmitt’s to be good for 354 mph.

 

The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or “yaw” as we call it; neither was there any tendency to “hunt”. It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure than any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon to be made to feel ashamed of himself. Seldom do we find a single seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed. I checked the control reaction in three stages – one as I have already mentioned, slightly above the stalling speed, and the controls worked beautifully.

 

In the second stage, about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily. 

Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship’s straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers – to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill. It was at that point that I subjected the ailerons to a critical test. I had pulled out of the dive around 400 mph and had started in a left hand climbing turn. The ship banked to about 40 degrees with the left wing low. I touched the right rudder, pressed forward on it slowly but steadily, moving the control stick to the right, and that Messerschmitt actually snapped out of the left hand turn and into a right handed climbing turn. That satisfied me. From there on, I tried every aerobatic manoeuvre I had ever executed in any other single seater fighter with the exception of the outside loop and the inverted loop.

 

The guns of this ship – five of them, all hunched on the fuselage – certainly made me feel as if I were aiming guns and not flying an airplane. In addition, I was particularly intrigued to find the control stick equipped with a tiny flap which was hinged to lie on top of the stick when not in use and to be swung forward and down – parallel with the front edge of the control stick handle. This little flap was the electric trigger which completed the circuit, when pressed by the fore finger, to operate all five machine guns. I found this trigger sensitive to the touch and extremely light, later ascertaining that a pressure of 3 milligrams was required to close the circuit and actuate the guns.

 

The trigger arrangement was the final little detail which brought me the impression that instead of actually flying an airplane upon which guns were mounted, I was actually aiming a delicately balanced rifle. 

 

When you see a man takeoff in a type of airplane he hasn’t flown before, you can tell before the chap returns to the ground whether he likes his ship or not. If the ship is tricky and cranky or he is not satisfied with it, he’ll probably make some big figure eights and maybe a few little dives, or a couple of loops. But if he really flies the ship and rides the sky with it, amusing himself with all sorts of aerobatic manoeuvres, you can walk up to that chap as soon as he completes his landing and tell him you are glad he liked the ship. And this was exactly what Ernst Udet said to me after I zoomed the field a half dozen times and overstayed my specified time in the air. As I taxied into the line, Udet, keen as a whip, and never missing a trick, walked toward me saying “Al, you like that ship huh?”

 

The longer one is at the flying business, the more firmly convinced he becomes that he knows very little about it. I must say, however, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 is the finest airplane I have ever flown. It was a very happy day for me thus to enjoy the opportunity of flying and studying one of Germany’s first line single seater fighters. I was told, of course, that the performance of the Heinkel was about that of the Messerschmitt, and I have been assured on this point, repeatedly. As far as I know, I’m the only pilot outside the members of the air force who has ever flown a first line Messerschmitt Bf 109.

 

Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. There are a great many single engined fighters in the world that I have not flown, but I had formed my opinion of the flight characteristics of the Messerschmitt after studying it on the ground and before flying it. And those estimates were confirmed in flight. I had made my own estimates of the performance and manoeuvrability characteristics of a lot of other single engined fighters, and I’d be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Bf 109.

 

Before dismissing my flight in the Bf 109, it is necessary to include a comment on that already offered concerning the accessibility of the engine for maintenance service. I will give it to you point blank and let you estimate its value. The engine of the Messerschmitt can be removed, replaced with another – ready to go – inside of 12 minutes.

 

You can imagine the uproar of doubt and incredulity in official circles when I returned to the States and spread the word around. The reason for the uproar was quite obvious, in that in very many instances, between 24 and 36 hours were required to remove one engine and replace it with another in many of our standard types of fighting planes. But, when other Americans returned home from an inspection of the German Air Force and told the same story, great impetus was given to the development of a quick motor replacement in service ships... The Germans had developed the technique and trained the ground crews to effect this change of engines in the specified length of time on the open airdrome – given of course, decent weather conditions.

 

It was explained to me that, from a tactical standpoint, this ultra rapid change of motors was of utmost importance. For instance, a pilot returning from an active front to his own airdrome could radio ahead and notify the field force that he needed a new engine. By the time he had landed, they could be ready for him.

 

Ordinary service to an aircraft, such as filling the gasoline tank, checking and replenishing the oil supply, and reloading ammunition belts, requires between ten and fifteen minutes. The new development therefore enables the Germans to change an engine while the rest of the service is going on. It’s startling performance – namely yanking one engine and replacing it with another, and turning it over to the pilot inside of 12 minutes.’

 

- Al Williams USMC, Discussing his flight on 15th July 1938 in a Bf 109 D-1 before the war

 

Cheers,

Edited February 25, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[ZM12CR8]

12 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

You can imagine the uproar of doubt and incredulity in official circles when I returned to the States and spread the word around. The reason for the uproar was quite obvious, in that in very many instances, between 24 and 36 hours were required to remove one engine and replace it with another in many of our standard types of fighting planes. But, when other Americans returned home from an inspection of the German Air Force and told the same story, great impetus was given to the development of a quick motor replacement in service ships... The Germans had developed the technique and trained the ground crews to effect this change of engines in the specified length of time on the open airdrome – given of course, decent weather conditions.

 

It was explained to me that, from a tactical standpoint, this ultra rapid change of motors was of utmost importance. For instance, a pilot returning from an active front to his own airdrome could radio ahead and notify the field force that he needed a new engine. By the time he had landed, they could be ready for him.

 

Ordinary service to an aircraft, such as filling the gasoline tank, checking and replenishing the oil supply, and reloading ammunition belts, requires between ten and fifteen minutes. The new development therefore enables the Germans to change an engine while the rest of the service is going on. It’s startling performance – namely yanking one engine and replacing it with another, and turning it over to the pilot inside of 12 minutes.’

thank you very much for this @Aurora_Stealth!

 

[Aurora_Stealth]

No worries at all! 

 

Cheers

[Bremspropeller]

I wouldn't fly an airplane that had it's engine changed in 12 minutes.

I guess they just slipped a 0 under the rug - 120 minutes seems much closer to an actual figure to me. And that's also reletively quick.

 

It might also be two ther things:

 

- propaganda / intentional BSing

- a mess-up in translation

 

[ZM12CR8]

55 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

- propaganda / intentional BSing

- a mess-up in translation

An english aviation magazine also reports on an engine change on a JU 90 that took 30 minutes from landing to take-off. The exchange of complete assemblies was extremely popular and widespread among the Germans at the time. The same applies to submarines, Kübelwagen and the BR 52 war locomotive. There is an instruction in a manual for changing the engine. This shows that really only a few steps were necessary. A central point of the ME 109 must be the chassis and the fire protection wall. all cables and power connections were more or less pluggable and color-coded. Due to the landing gear, it was also possible to change entire wings within a very short time.

I don't think every thoughtful development has to necessarily be propaganda.

War economy was a concept that covered all aspects, such as time, cost, availability and most favorable operating conditions

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by ZM12CR8

[Bremspropeller]

Those kinds of exchanges maybe could be performed as a part of a well-orchestrated ballet under optimum conditions.

However: Keep in mind that a lot of stuff was written to make Germany (and the Luftwaffe) look much more like the giant it never was.

 

Changing an engine isn't just slapping on another power-egg.

It also requires careful attention if all the quick-fittings actually are connected and tightly in place. Then there's engine-tweaking and trimming. Leak-checks, etc.

A few seconds of inattention can easily trash your engine mounts.

Do all that in 30 minutes? No way, José!

 

Again: I would not accept an aircraft that had this kind of work performed in this short amount of time.

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Kurfurst]

I spoke to an actual 109 mechanic on this, he said that the ~15 min engine change is doable, but it's more of a Formula 1 pit crew stunt, with the spare engine readied up, sufficient crew man ready in which case you just have to 'plug and play'. This was seldom necessary, but its doable, courtesy of widespread quick fasteners (on other planes it would take just as much time to unscrew all screws holding the engine hood in place!), colour coded piping, quick release hose plugs etc. 

 

French reports on early 109Es also comment on these features specifically and very favourably. It just shows and ease of access and maintenance has been given though in the design process, and engine installation was easy, and in extreme cases it could be even done in time required to refuel and rearm to plane. The real practical benefit is, however, that your ground crew had to work considerably less in the evening to prepare planes for the next day.

[ZM12CR8]

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Those kinds of exchanges maybe could be performed as a part of a well-orchestrated ballet under optimum conditions.

However: Keep in mind that a lot of stuff was written to make Germany (and the Luftwaffe) look much more like the giant it never was.

EVERYTHING was menat to make the Luftwaffe bigger and more capable than they really were.

 

Changing an engine isn't just slapping on another power-egg.

It also requires careful attention if all the quick-fittings actually are connected and tightly in place. Then there's engine-tweaking and trimming. Leak-checks, etc.

A few seconds of inattention can easily trash your engine mounts.

Do all that in 30 minutes? No way, José!

 

Again: I would not accept an aircraft that had this kind of work performed in this short amount of time.

it's not about having an opinion on it. The sources clearly suggest that an extremely quick assembly change was feasible. And that wasn't a coincidence, it was planned exactly from the first step of development. Of course, the time required to change the engine depends on the frame conditions. And the 12 minutes should only present what is feasible and were not the rule on a field airfield.

[Bremspropeller]

3 minutes ago, ZM12CR8 said:

it's not about having an opinion on it. The sources clearly suggest that an extremely quick assembly change was feasible. And that wasn't a coincidence, it was planned exactly from the first step of development. Of course, the time required to change the engine depends on the frame conditions. And the 12 minutes should only present what is feasible and were not the rule on a field airfield.

 

We're not discussing the same point here:

 

I'm not debating the amount of time under which the assembly-change could possibly be performed with all kinds of preparation (which kind of defeats the logic behind the "12 minute engine change") and under clinical conditions.

 

The point is that you can't change the engine in 12/15/30 minutes and have a safe airplane. You might get away with it a few times, but sooner or later, some doofus is going to drop the ball and you'll have an airplane crash because of omitted worksteps - despite seemingly "idiot-proof" quick fittings - or other reasons that actually require some creativity in being stupid. There's a reason why aircraft engine-changes are not performed like in F1 pit-stops.

 

It has been demonstrated thousand-fold. Murphy's gonna strike quick and with vengeance.

And the 109-mechanic's comment of "this was seldomly neccessary" is hinting at just that.

 

 

[ZM12CR8]

8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

We're not discussing the same point here:

seems so!

[JG7_X-Man]

On 2/26/2021 at 6:43 AM, Bremspropeller said:

I wouldn't fly an airplane that had it's engine changed in 12 minutes.

I guess they just slipped a 0 under the rug - 120 minutes seems much closer to an actual figure to me. And that's also reletively quick.

 

It might also be two ther things:

 

- propaganda / intentional BSing

- a mess-up in translation

 

I am with you on this! 12 minutes under combat conditions in the 1940s without power tools - I am goin to call BS on this one LOL.

Edited February 27, 2021 by JG7_X-Man

[Bremspropeller]

Yeah, it's a circus-trick with all the major components pre-aranged, unboxed and ready to swap (no counting those man-hours, of course!).

Post-MX checks? Naaah, ain't nobody got time for that!

 

Gen. Wever crashed and took the german strategical bomber-force with him into the grave because of a forgotten gust-lock.

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick...

[Rapier07]

I have been flying 109s for years in COD and have now moved to IL2 to fly F2 and F4s. Doing quick missions to get the feel and tactics. I tried and 190A5 the other day and it was a shaky takeoff and land landing to say the least. So far I really like to improvements to the F4 with improved power and handling. Flying one on ones with laggs and migs to start. Takeoff and landings feel like the same with 109Es on COD. no issues. I want to do more with FWs in the future. 109F4 I can choose to how to fight vertical or horizontal and everything in between at a moments notice

[Bremspropeller]

Have you made sure your tailwheel was locked on the 190? You'll need to pull the stick slightly aft of center to achieve that. Pushing it forward will unlock the TW again.

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 2/26/2021 at 1:06 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

We're not discussing the same point here:

 

I'm not debating the amount of time under which the assembly-change could possibly be performed with all kinds of preparation (which kind of defeats the logic behind the "12 minute engine change") and under clinical conditions.

 

The point is that you can't change the engine in 12/15/30 minutes and have a safe airplane. You might get away with it a few times, but sooner or later, some doofus is going to drop the ball and you'll have an airplane crash because of omitted worksteps - despite seemingly "idiot-proof" quick fittings - or other reasons that actually require some creativity in being stupid. There's a reason why aircraft engine-changes are not performed like in F1 pit-stops.

 

It has been demonstrated thousand-fold. Murphy's gonna strike quick and with vengeance.

And the 109-mechanic's comment of "this was seldomly neccessary" is hinting at just that.

 

 

 

Well to be honest on modern day technical manuals and aircraft equipment repair/mod schemes they never give practical numbers. They're usually theoretical approximations... mainly because the people who write them don't do the task themselves.

 

I do agree though, and wouldn't say 12 minutes is at all a practical number - in WW2 field conditions with decent manpower (which the Luftwaffe did have) this could probably be done acceptably under an hour if they had experienced personnel. If you're not in a rush and aircraft availability isn't an issue then you're obviously just going to take a few hours out. But this is still an immense amount of flexibility compared to the norm and also explains why the Bf 109 didn't suffer as much from the same effects of in-service performance degradation like was seen and documented in the RAF (esp. 1941 - 1942). You can see how they were able to maintain at times a much higher rate of operations and could focus on keeping the aircraft in a good condition provided the spares and logistics could keep up. But the latter was always the problem.

 

Question: Safe airplane compared to? 1940's standards? or 2021 standards? aircraft safety has generally come a long way in 80 years... with exceptions of course.

 

If you are maintaining these aircraft today you are going to spend a great deal more time ensuring everything is fully tightened and double checked, spark plugs and oil checks etc and testing this all. But these were war conditions and for example when your cities are being bombed into oblivion with thousands of people dying - having an aircraft ready to fight on both the entry and exit flights of the daylight bombing raids might (should?) be considered a matter of utmost importance.

 

Two things I'd like to also add... yes there was definitely propaganda going on of course. They clearly wanted to impress and panic their potential opposition... but the Luftwaffe was not short at all on manpower after mobilising (at some points over 3 million strong although that does cover many areas/duties).

 

If you had experienced technicians on each side of the engine, several ground crew operating and positioning the crane and others dedicated to preparing the oil, ammunition and getting the parts ready - then you can and will minimise the time. A ground crew operating near the frontline/operational area is going to get pretty good at this - you're tightening bolts and connecting elements - these aren't out of the world tasks provided you're familiar with the engine and know where these elements are.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[Bremspropeller]

6 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Well to be honest on modern day technical manuals and aircraft equipment repair/mod schemes they never give practical numbers. They're usually theoretical approximations... mainly because the people who write them don't do the task themselves.

 

I do agree though, and wouldn't say 12 minutes is at all a practical number - in WW2 field conditions with decent manpower (which the Luftwaffe did have) this could probably be done acceptably under an hour if they had experienced personnel. If you're not in a rush and aircraft availability isn't an issue then you're obviously just going to take a few hours out. But this is still an immense amount of flexibility compared to the norm and also explains why the Bf 109 didn't suffer as much from the same effects of performance degradation like was seen and documented in the RAF (esp. 1941 - 1943). You can see how they were able to maintain at times a much higher rate of operations and could focus on keeping the aircraft in a good condition provided the spares and logistics could keep up. But the latter was always the problem.

 

Question: Safe airplane compared to? 1940's standards? or 2021 standards? aircraft safety has generally come a long way in 80 years... with exceptions of course.

 

If you are maintaining these aircraft today you are going to spend a great deal more time ensuring everything is fully tightened and double checked, spark plugs and oil checks etc and testing this all. But these were war conditions and for example when your cities are being bombed into oblivion with thousands of people dying - having an aircraft ready to fight on both the entry and exit flights of the daylight bombing raids might (should?) be considered a matter of utmost importance.

 

Two things I'd like to also add... yes there was definitely propaganda going on of course. They clearly wanted to impress and panic their potential opposition... but the Luftwaffe was not short at all on manpower after mobilising (at some points over 3 million strong although that does cover many areas/duties).

 

If you had experienced technicians on each side of the engine, several ground crew operating and positioning the crane and others dedicated to preparing the oil, ammunition and getting the parts ready - then you can and will minimise the time. A ground crew operating near the frontline/operational area is going to get pretty good at this - you're tightening bolts and connecting elements - these aren't out of the world tasks provided you're familiar with the engine and know where these elements are.

 

It really depends on the aircraft. If you're looking for an engine-change on an Airbus (and probably any MRB-based aircraft), you'll have a planning-figure of required manhours, required tools (if they're special tools) and required qualification. Those usually are very optimistic and don't account for stuff like gaining access and other external stuff (like shuffling engine-stands, shift-changes, etc) that just comes with normal MX-procedures. So planning usually involves a liberal amount of experience-based extra time.

 

There can only be one safety-standard, really. Back in the 1940s (and during war-times), higher losses were deemed to be acceptable. Mostly for the lack of better knowledge, but also because life was more dangerous in the first place and thus a greater number of losses was just shrugged over.

However: If having the same number of serviceable aircraft is available by reducing the risk of having one crash due to a MX-related lapse, any leader would have accepted the extra time neccessary to perform the job correctly.

It's not that the airplanes were required to be ready 24/7 and there usually was at least a whole night of ground-time available for engine-swaps or other highly intrusive MX.

 

I agree that having changed multiple engines will streamline a mechanic's performance. It will also make him more vulnerable for small (and possible major) deficiencies of his work, though. There is no data on this, but it would be interesting how large the percentage of bad maintenance in operational (and combat) losses was.

If you're going by the number of deficient pilot-training, procedures and the likes, it's going to be quite significant.

 

 

[JV69badatflyski]

From memory.
15min for the engine swap+prop on the 190 with a crew of 4 and the crane. No mention the plane was fully ready, just the time for the power-egg swap.
I think this is from the BWM Manual, should check again.

[Angry_Kitten]

On 3/1/2021 at 5:01 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

It really depends on the aircraft. If you're looking for an engine-change on an Airbus (and probably any MRB-based aircraft), you'll have a planning-figure of required manhours, required tools (if they're special tools) and required qualification. Those usually are very optimistic and don't account for stuff like gaining access and other external stuff (like shuffling engine-stands, shift-changes, etc) that just comes with normal MX-procedures. So planning usually involves a liberal amount of experience-based extra time.

 

There can only be one safety-standard, really. Back in the 1940s (and during war-times), higher losses were deemed to be acceptable. Mostly for the lack of better knowledge, but also because life was more dangerous in the first place and thus a greater number of losses was just shrugged over.

However: If having the same number of serviceable aircraft is available by reducing the risk of having one crash due to a MX-related lapse, any leader would have accepted the extra time neccessary to perform the job correctly.

It's not that the airplanes were required to be ready 24/7 and there usually was at least a whole night of ground-time available for engine-swaps or other highly intrusive MX.

 

I agree that having changed multiple engines will streamline a mechanic's performance. It will also make him more vulnerable for small (and possible major) deficiencies of his work, though. There is no data on this, but it would be interesting how large the percentage of bad maintenance in operational (and combat) losses was.

If you're going by the number of deficient pilot-training, procedures and the likes, it's going to be quite significant.

 

 

So first you say that the short duration, 30 minute or less engine swap on a plane designed to have that done, is only doable or safe if the mechanics have done it many many times... 

 

 

then you boldly go forth and state that a mechanic who has done the job multiple times will somehow mysteriously, become lax, forgetful, and cause the engine swap out to become a deadly death trap to fly. 

 

 

[CUJO_1970]

I think the point is that theoretically, those engines could be swapped out in that time, but Brems is correct - it is not realistic (or perhaps safe) especially at many of the unprepared fields the Luftwaffe used.

 

With that being said both of those aircraft were built for the battlefield and were incredibly cost effective from a build and maintenance standpoint. A FW-190 engine change was incredibly fast needing simple hand tools. Where the Luftwaffe struggled, especially late in the war was spare parts - hence they would many times just go get a whole new airplane.

 

You think serviceability rates were low in the Luftwaffe at the end of the war? They would have been much lower had they been burdened with maintaining P-51s or heaven forbid a P-47 with it's absurdly lengthy maintenance requirements.

 

Bob Strobell said the same things while they were working with Me-262s after the war - incredibly fast to work on due to it's construction, to change out just about anything and get it flying again. He fell in love with those birds.

[sevenless]

On 2/26/2021 at 12:43 PM, Bremspropeller said:

I wouldn't fly an airplane that had it's engine changed in 12 minutes.

 

When I was in the army (back in the 90s in a Tank Batallion) we managed to change the Leo 2 engine in about 30min. Mind you that engine pack module was designed from the ground up to quick exchange under field conditions. So I am with you. They somehow lost the zero. 120min seems way more realistic to me.

[Bremspropeller]

On 7/24/2021 at 6:04 AM, pocketshaver said:

So first you say that the short duration, 30 minute or less engine swap on a plane designed to have that done, is only doable or safe if the mechanics have done it many many times... 

 

 

then you boldly go forth and state that a mechanic who has done the job multiple times will somehow mysteriously, become lax, forgetful, and cause the engine swap out to become a deadly death trap to fly. 

 

No.

 

It's doable by an experienced crew that has exchanged a couple of engines already. That very experience tends to have people come up with their own techniques, ignoring procedures and standards. It's linked to several ofthe "Dirty Dozen" maintenance-errors.

 

Swapping an engine in that short amout of time is never *safe*.

Ever.

[ZachariasX]

I don‘t think that these XY minutes were ever meant to describe a procedure that reflects an airworthy aircraft, but it mainly reflects the few work steps required to physically detach and re-attach the engine. Being able to use a wrench instead of nippers helps a lot.

 

I mean, it certainly takes more than 12 minutes to get a perfectly fine DB60X running after the aircraft sat cold and dark for some time.