About the 109 glas wing....

January 14

Albeit a bit clickbaity I can currently clipp a 109s wing with 2-3 20mm Shvak hits (6,4g TNT each)

Question:

why is the 109s wing that much weaker and prone to damage than the wooden wings of its Yaks/La counterparts (shouldn't wood be more susceptible to damage than duraluminium)?

Is this reflected on higher dive speed and G-limits for the soviet fighter? (iircc soviet fighters have a l lower dive speed limit).

Wasnt the 109s wing constantly beefed up?

TrackFiles (of 2 hits examples) :

https://easyupload.io/m/6t1d62

Edited January 14 by the_emperor

January 14

Wing off from 303

January 14

8 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Albeit a bit clickbaity I can currently clipp a 109s wing with 2-3 20mm Shvak hits (6,4g TNT each)

Question:

why is the 109s wing that much weaker and prone to damage than the wooden wings of its Yaks/La counterparts (shouldn't wood be more susceptible to damage than duraluminium)?

Is this reflected on higher dive speed and G-limits for the soviet fighter? (iircc soviet fighters have a l lower dive speed limit).

Wasnt the 109s wing constantly beefed up?

TrackFiles (of 2 hits examples) :

https://easyupload.io/m/6t1d62

Thanks, forwarded to our engineers.

January 15

To be fair, the Germans actually did a bunch of dive and mach testing on 109s, ultimately revising the dive speed limits, due to aircraft losing their wings in dives. And there are a lot of examples in gun camera footage and pilot AAR's of 109s having their wings shot off. A few examples:

4 x .50 from a P-51B

6 x .50 from a P-51D

From another P-51D in a different squadron of the same group on that same day

January 15

@357th_KW

thx

i Dont mean it should not be possible , and late war quality probably did also its part (though that is not part of the game)

I was just wondering , on paper, if the 109s wing should be weaker than e.g. it soviet wooden counterparts.

I dont expect P-47 level of durability but at least equal to Yaks or La.

The wing design was already discussed here:

Edited January 15 by the_emperor

January 15

I think that a spar is not a physical element with its own hitbox and if you hit the wing from behind at a right angle, the random generator will calculate the critical damage to the spar, if the plane has more than one spar, you have to hit the wing several times. It is not reduced or taken into account that this single spar in the 109 was relatively strong compared to those in multi-spar airplanes and that the remaining elements of the 109 wing structure also carried g-forces, which also weakens the strength of the in game wing when the airplane is hit when overloaded.

January 15

Perhaps its the guns, not the plane? 😄

https://1drv.ms/v/c/4753e6dfd6f0462d/ES1G8Nbf5lMggEemjQAAAAAB21JLSxZAtDMn_GOV4NEAPw?e=fXhF7f

January 15

3 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I think that a spar is not a physical element with its own hitbox and if you hit the wing from behind at a right angle, the random generator will calculate the critical damage to the spar, if the plane has more than one spar, you have to hit the wing several times. It is not reduced or taken into account that this single spar in the 109 was relatively strong compared to those in multi-spar airplanes and that the remaining elements of the 109 wing structure also carried g-forces, which also weakens the strength of the in game wing when the airplane is hit when overloaded.

Yeah... I guess it comes down to the assumtion that the single spar design is "weaker" (which is does not seems to be) and the support structure is ignored.

Though HE-shells in game have no delay and explode on the surface I would argue that in game AP round should have a higher chance of clipping a wing (after enough hits that is).

Also I would say that, when damaged a wooden wing should probably more easly brake than one of duraluminium.

January 15

7 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Yeah... I guess it comes down to the assumtion that the single spar design is "weaker" (which is does not seems to be) and the support structure is ignored.

Though HE-shells in game have no delay and explode on the surface I would argue that in game AP round should have a higher chance of clipping a wing (after enough hits that is).

Also I would say that, when damaged a wooden wing should probably more easly brake than one of duraluminium.

Another consideration to bear in mind with the '109 that is often under appreciated when discussing its single spar arrangement is that this is not load bearing the weight of the undercarriage like with other fighters, or supporting wing fuel tanks or a heavy wing armament... the armament is concentrated in the fuselage unlike many other fighter aircraft. This is in stark contrast to some of the US fighters which are carrying a lot of weight in the wings for just the armament (and fuel). The exception is the underwing Rüstsätze kits that could be applied to the Bf 109 G but it doesn't detract from the other points. This was understood as part of the inherent lightweight design philosophy and accommodated by reinforcing the fewer joints and their linking to the firewall.

So, while the single spar had less redundancy; and was further aft than in other contemporary wing structures; you have to remember it wasn't having to distribute such high loads locally within the wing and was doing it across a stiff, narrow and well reinforced wing area (compensated aerodynamically by the leading edge slats). In other words, its not just the spar itself but the D-shape wing structure and stressed skin construction that was contributing to the overall strength, which ensured it remained very torsionally stiff relative to its light airframe.

Edited January 15 by Aurora_Stealth

January 15

Having mass (fuel/armament) distributed along the wing reduces G bending loads compared to putting the same mass in the fuselage. Think about it...

January 15

9 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Having mass (fuel/armament) distributed along the wing reduces G bending loads compared to putting the same mass in the fuselage. Think about it...

The original post of this topic was talking about combat damage occurring to the wing(s) and structural strength, bending loads are not the only consideration in structural failure (although this is a major consideration in max dive speed, which was also mentioned in the first post).

Having substantially more mass situated in the wings can contribute to a greater build-up of stress within it - which, yes can be distributed over a larger wing; but my point is the additional local mass can exacerbate the effect of combat damage. It does then need a bigger area or stronger structure then to distribute that mass. If significant combat damage occurs in just one wing or a particular area in that wing (generating a weak spot), then that higher local mass concentration can clearly contribute to catastrophic failure in the wing. Whether or not there are reinforcements for load carrying capability does not necessarily change that.

I'm not saying the Bf 109 wing is more durable or robust, but relatively speaking it should not be considered fragile (read the Messerschmitt durability thread linked earlier). Granted, the Bf 109 is not going to take combat damage like a P-47, or even a Hurricane or perhaps Spitfire but it should not be the case where catastrophic structural failure is occurring prematurely in a very disproportionate way from other fighters when receiving battle damage.

Edited January 16 by Aurora_Stealth
Clarity added

January 15

Local stress concentrations will be taken into account when designing e.g. mounting points for external armament, and the structure there beefed up accordingly (just like anywhere else on the aircraft). They don't simply bolt stuff on.

Edited January 15 by AndyJWest

January 16

8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Local stress concentrations will be taken into account when designing e.g. mounting points for external armament, and the structure there beefed up accordingly (just like anywhere else on the aircraft). They don't simply bolt stuff on.

Sure I agree, reinforcement for supporting an aircrafts payload under nominal flight conditions, reserve factor to tolerate G as well as some consideration for survivability. How much structural reinforcement was put in or layered in there depended on the design priorities and payload/systems carried in the wing of that particular aircraft (that can vary a lot). The extent of it is really down to design philosophy.

We're steering off the original topic again though, there are cases where damage from low calibre rounds or a very small number of cannon shells are causing premature catastrophic failure of 109 wings ingame, in stark contrast to other similar aircraft without having any obvious material weakness inherent in the design.

Regardless of design philosophy, this doesn't make sense considering that sufficient structural strength was being provided by the overall shape (D) of the wing structure, the stressed skin and the many stiffeners in between plus the wing being relatively unloaded in terms of mass concentration.

My point is its fundamental strength was not determined only on whether or not it had a second spar and with lots of local reinforcements. That definitely helps resist combat damage and offer greater redundancy to very serious damage but it doesn't mean the wing was weak to start with and could only take a small fraction of the combat damage. You'd have to be pretty unlucky to receive multiple hits into the aircraft spar to cause a catastrophic failure like that.

Edited January 16 by Aurora_Stealth

January 16

I see no particular reason to assume that the apparent weakness of 109 wing in game (which I'd agree seems quite possibly to be present, though I've not done any real testing) has anything to do with specifics regarding relatively minor details of its structural design compared to other aircraft. And frankly, I'm not sure it matters. If the high failure rate can be repeatably demonstrated, and shown to be excessive, the developers can look into it, and adjust whatever parameters are responsible.

I think this thread got off on rather a tangent, with comments regarding the relative strengths of 'wood' (a highly variable material), with duralumin (itself not a single alloy), and on max safe dive speed , which may be limited for several reasons beyond raw wing strength (flutter, control forces, Mach effects etc) None of this is directly relevant to what is, if present and incorrect, an issue with how the simulation models damage from gunfire. We don't have access to the source code, and accordingly, trying to guess the 'cause' of the problem may tend to cloud the issue, rather than help resolve it.

As far as end-users are concerned, simulations are generally best measured by their results, rather than by trying to figure out what goes on inside. Leave that to the developers. Discussions on the relative merits of materials, structural design approaches etc followed by different aircraft designers etc are of course legitimate topic for a forum discussing combat aircraft, but not in what ought to be a bug report.

January 16

example of 3 Ap and 1 HE hit (Shvak)

https://easyupload.io/m/6t1d62

example of 2 Hispano hit

https://easyupload.io/4phe5b

https://easyupload.io/hyod4s

January 16

examples (2x 20mm Hispano and 3 (2 HE and 1 AP) 20mm Shvak) for wing clipping

https://easyupload.io/m/520lcp

I would further my complaint that the Hispani currently has too much HE-filling

currently 11.3g. the historical correct loading is 5.6g.

FM- Reports have already been submitted!

Edited January 16 by the_emperor

January 16

On 1/15/2025 at 3:55 AM, 357th_KW said:

To be fair, the Germans actually did a bunch of dive and mach testing on 109s, ultimately revising the dive speed limits, due to aircraft losing their wings in dives.

The revision had nothing to do with wing strength per se, but partly poor maintainance practices in the field (painting of ailerons, using grease that froze up at altitude in the tail plane), and partly poorly understood aerodynamic effects.

In the end the culprit was found in 1943 to be lack of directional stability and resulting aileron instability and Dutch rolls via a bunch of dive and Mach testing during which the permissible dive limits were widely exceeded. They found that the plane was in the danger of shaking itself apart as a result at very high speed oscillations achieved under specific and very extreme conditions (full throttle 80 degree dive from max service altitude).

That had nothing to do with the strength of the wing which was stressed to be good enough for about 12-13 g break limit. Neither it had anything to do with wing strength on P-51s that were regularly falling apart in high speed dives in 1944, where again other factors were at culprit (opening wheel doors and lack of directional stability on the early D variants until the dorsal fin was introduce d), not ‘wing strength’ per se.

The solution on the 109 was to install tall tail units to improve directional stability which ultimately resulted in increasing the dive limit considerably to 850 kph IAS in early 1944.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

January 16

On 1/14/2025 at 8:53 PM, LukeFF said:

Thanks, forwarded to our engineers.

Could you also ask whether the Hispano HE filling can be corrected to the historical correct values?

11.3g -> 5.6g

https://easyupload.io/kt977l

Shvak 20mm

1 AP and 1 HE hit clip the 109 wing

https://easyupload.io/eg6djr

1AP and 1 HE hit in just the wing tip brakes the whole wing

Edited January 16 by the_emperor

January 16

1 hour ago, the_emperor said:

Could you also ask whether the Hispano HE filling can be corrected to the historical correct values?

11.3g -> 5.6g

And Minen from 20g-->~28g.

January 16

I found a solution without having to change the FM or the ballistics! In 2014 I had three monitors with 1080 resolution. It's just different with a 4K monitor! On top of that, pilots have 10 years or more experience with their rig. These guys just hit well from too great a distance! My property is 500m long. My shooting range for the K98 is 110m gg I hit pretty well with VR at under 400m. Now put a 9m wingspan on the 109 at 500m and take a look without binoculars 🤣🤣 since my RC 109 is 1:3 I only need it in thirds gg As a developer, I would change the zoom on monitors to match the way it is in VR 🤣 that would make a difference...If I zoom in to over 1000m in VR, the plane gets smaller and the ground graphics get closer... Best easy solution....

January 16

7 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Could you also ask whether the Hispano HE filling can be corrected to the historical correct values?

11.3g -> 5.6g

https://easyupload.io/kt977l

Shvak 20mm

1 AP and 1 HE hit clip the 109 wing

https://easyupload.io/eg6djr

1AP and 1 HE hit in just the wing tip brakes the whole wing

Yes, I'll ask, thanks.

January 17

One 20mm Hispano Hit to clip a G-6 wing.

https://easyupload.io/5urv0e

January 17

On 1/16/2025 at 10:58 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

The solution on the 109 was to install tall tail units to improve directional stability which ultimately resulted in increasing the dive limit considerably to 850 kph IAS in early 1944.

for my personal interest. do you have any reports on the dive speed with the taller tail?

many thanks

17 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, I'll ask, thanks.

many thanks 🙂

Regarding the wing breakage:

it seems that the Wing Tip (area) cant be shot of independently and is very prone to being shot of with 1-3 hits, and where the wing tip should come off separately it takes off the whole wing...which would suggest an additional "problem" in the 3D models of all 109s? and that is probably no easy fix🙈

even two 13mm seem to be enough

https://easyupload.io/vhjyx1

Edited January 17 by the_emperor

January 19

On 1/16/2025 at 1:58 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

The revision had nothing to do with wing strength per se, but partly poor maintainance practices in the field (painting of ailerons, using grease that froze up at altitude in the tail plane), and partly poorly understood aerodynamic effects.

In the end the culprit was found in 1943 to be lack of directional stability and resulting aileron instability and Dutch rolls via a bunch of dive and Mach testing during which the permissible dive limits were widely exceeded. They found that the plane was in the danger of shaking itself apart as a result at very high speed oscillations achieved under specific and very extreme conditions (full throttle 80 degree dive from max service altitude).

That had nothing to do with the strength of the wing which was stressed to be good enough for about 12-13 g break limit. Neither it had anything to do with wing strength on P-51s that were regularly falling apart in high speed dives in 1944, where again other factors were at culprit (opening wheel doors and lack of directional stability on the early D variants until the dorsal fin was introduce d), not ‘wing strength’ per se.

The solution on the 109 was to install tall tail units to improve directional stability which ultimately resulted in increasing the dive limit considerably to 850 kph IAS in early 1944.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

You're leaving out some key pieces of the story here as described in those reports. In order to "widely exceed that dive speed limit" they had to limit aileron travel to 50% of a production aircraft, and in his account of the dive testing Lukas Schmid describes multiple cases where this prevented disaster, both with an without the tall tail. Additionally a much larger trim tab had to be fitted to the aircraft, and the trim locked in a specific position in order to allow the aircraft to both maintain the dive and then recover.

And while the tall tail certainly added some more directional stability, it didn't completely remove the aileron imbalance at high speeds as Schmid describes. I've linked his account of these tests, from Radinger and Otto's book:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s5HcEHEFpTWwBgsB-MnqKBsHSM7TArcb/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-HHnKUJa1X8LLRB0B7JBRPfFNfEk5X2x/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jaTN8qpJAJ8SorWanVt2x-kToZU9iFIk/view?usp=drive_link

In spite of any increased limits, we still see mention of a lot of airframe failures in dives in 1944 from both German and Allied sources. Here are two from Caldwell's "JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" along with some Allied AARs:

On 27 November, a high-altitude mission in a K-4 almost cost Genth his life. The First and Third Gruppen were ordered to intercept heavy bombers. The Third Gruppe’s Bf 109s flew with those of JG 3 and JG 27. At 32,000 feet, Genth’s canopy iced over. He could see only straight ahead, through the thick, armored glass panel. Georg Genth remembers well the events of the next few minutes:

I cleared a small aperture in my left canopy pane, a few centimeters in diameter, by exhaling on it. I could then see behind me to my left. The canopy was otherwise covered in a thick layer of ice. As usual, my tactical position was at the rear of the formation, in the place of honor! I observed two Thunderbolts banking toward our formation. In my condition I could not fight them. Being totally unable to defrost my canopy with my heater, I reported my condition over the radio, and dove in a split-S into the cloud layer only a few hundred meters below. I remembered just in time that I had not switched on the artificial horizon. I did it while diving, since it was clear to me that I would have no chance to align the gyro properly in the clouds. What should I do? I had escaped the immediate danger of being shot down, but I would have no chance to regain control of my aircraft in a cloud thousands of feet thick. I attempted to reduce my speed—about 600 km/h [360 mph] indicated—by pulling on the stick. To my discomfort, however, my speed kept increasing—the indicator now hit 750 km/h! I realized that I was in an inverted bank and now pushed the stick forward. My speed dropped immediately. I attempted to slow down to about 500 km/h, so that I could make visual contact with the ground. However, this was very difficult. Just as the indicator hit the desired mark, I left the cloud in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters [1,600 feet] above the ground. The canopy had now warmed up and defrosted, and I could see again in all directions. Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unbelievable happened—the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude, from which I could then pull out with the help of the trim wheel! At my terminal speed, the engine cowling panels had torn off, and oil lines had split open from overpressure, but I could see again, and had my bird under control. I flew to Rheine, about three or four minutes away, without touching the throttle, my speed decreasing slowly. I landed my oil-smeared bird smoothly, and returned to Plantluenne by “Kuebelwagen,” a kind of jeep. Probably my good friend Helmut Lohrberg had had similar problems with icing, and had not been as lucky as I. He has been missing since this flight. As I stood on the landing ground at Rheine after landing, I heard three aircraft crash with overstraining engines, all right around Rheine! To this day, I have not been able to strike these ghastly noises from my memory.

On 14 December it was the turn of III/JG 26. Uffz. Heinz Gehrke received the assignment prized most highly by the 11th Staffel’s wingmen—he would fly with Obfw. Karl “Karlchen” Laub. Near Rheine, Laub and Gehrke were attacked from above and behind. Heinz Gehrke recalls:

Laub took in the situation immediately, began a split-S—unfortunately, very near the ground—and attempted to escape the hail of shells by coming around onto a reverse course. Always cognizant of my duty as a Rottenflieger, I turned with him. It was very difficult to regain control before hitting the ground. We were not very high—below 600 meters [2,000 feet]. During the split-S we naturally built up a great deal of speed. I saw very clearly that a wing fairing on Laub’s aircraft had come loose. It didn’t fly off, however, because it was secured by a cable. This circumstance led to Laub’s crash. He could no longer counter the forces involved, and rushed straight toward the ground. I was no more than sixty meters from him, and saw him crash. I pulled my aircraft up to determine the exact location, and my 109 was hit. A shell ripped through my canopy and instrument panel. There was a horrible noise, and I was suddenly outside the aircraft. I hung from my chute for only a few seconds, and then I was on the ground for the fourth time. Fortunately, I had received only a few splinters in my legs. A friendly neighbor brought me back the few miles to Plantluenne by motorcycle. Here I was able to report the fate of Obfw. Laub. I was not able to hide my tears, which streamed down my cheeks; my nerves were shot. Ask any member of the 11th Staffel—Karlchen Laub was one of the best in the Third Gruppe.

“At about 10,000 feet the e/a started a yellow smoke trail and immediately the left wing came off.”

”My I.A.S. was 600 and I hit compressibility at 15,000 feet, resulting in violent buffeting and oscillation of my ship. I noticed the Me 109 in the same condition; he was bucking and skidding violently. At about 10,000 feet his right wing ripped off about 4 feet from the fuselage”

"Just before getting into the clouds the Me109's left wing tore off ..."

"He snapped over into a vicious spin and I followed him until I saw the right wing come off ..."

All that being said, maybe the various wing losses in dives are completely unrelated to those from battle damage as you say. Anyway, here are some more gun camera films of 109's having their wings shot off:

Nov 27th, 1944 - P-51D attacking 109

January 2nd, 1945 - P-51D attacking 109

Jan 14th, 1945 - P-47D attacking 109 - appears to be a cannon magazine or O2 bottle detonation which I'm not sure is possible in game right now with the 109

Sept 1944 - wing lost to explosion of some sort

Sept 1944

Here are 18 examples of RAF pilot AAR's (mostly from Spitfires but a few Tempests) describing various engagements using 20mm Hispanos against 109s resulting in a wing being shot off - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B72vulR6UepTSdi69tqEsbAVsCEN1uk21ZaZc9nebOk/edit?usp=drive_link

January 19

10 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

All that being said, maybe the various wing losses in dives are completely unrelated to those from battle damage as you say. Anyway, here are some more gun camera films of 109's having their wings shot off:

Again, I am not saying that the wings shouldnt be able to be shot off.

and late war production quality issues did certainly played its part irl (as ammuntion storage in the wing).

But on paper (what the game is based of) the 109s wing seems not more or less strong (or weak) than its counterparts and shouldnt be so easy to clip, as it is now the case

Edited January 19 by the_emperor

January 19

9 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

You're leaving out some key pieces of the story here as described in those reports. In order to "widely exceed that dive speed limit" they had to limit aileron travel to 50% of a production aircraft, and in his account of the dive testing Lukas Schmid describes multiple cases where this prevented disaster, both with an without the tall tail. Additionally a much larger trim tab had to be fitted to the aircraft, and the trim locked in a specific position in order to allow the aircraft to both maintain the dive and then recover.

And while the tall tail certainly added some more directional stability, it didn't completely remove the aileron imbalance at high speeds as Schmid describes. I've linked his account of these tests, from Radinger and Otto's book:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s5HcEHEFpTWwBgsB-MnqKBsHSM7TArcb/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-HHnKUJa1X8LLRB0B7JBRPfFNfEk5X2x/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jaTN8qpJAJ8SorWanVt2x-kToZU9iFIk/view?usp=drive_link

In spite of any increased limits, we still see mention of a lot of airframe failures in dives in 1944 from both German and Allied sources. Here are two from Caldwell's "JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" along with some Allied AARs:

On 27 November, a high-altitude mission in a K-4 almost cost Genth his life. The First and Third Gruppen were ordered to intercept heavy bombers. The Third Gruppe’s Bf 109s flew with those of JG 3 and JG 27. At 32,000 feet, Genth’s canopy iced over. He could see only straight ahead, through the thick, armored glass panel. Georg Genth remembers well the events of the next few minutes:

I cleared a small aperture in my left canopy pane, a few centimeters in diameter, by exhaling on it. I could then see behind me to my left. The canopy was otherwise covered in a thick layer of ice. As usual, my tactical position was at the rear of the formation, in the place of honor! I observed two Thunderbolts banking toward our formation. In my condition I could not fight them. Being totally unable to defrost my canopy with my heater, I reported my condition over the radio, and dove in a split-S into the cloud layer only a few hundred meters below. I remembered just in time that I had not switched on the artificial horizon. I did it while diving, since it was clear to me that I would have no chance to align the gyro properly in the clouds. What should I do? I had escaped the immediate danger of being shot down, but I would have no chance to regain control of my aircraft in a cloud thousands of feet thick. I attempted to reduce my speed—about 600 km/h [360 mph] indicated—by pulling on the stick. To my discomfort, however, my speed kept increasing—the indicator now hit 750 km/h! I realized that I was in an inverted bank and now pushed the stick forward. My speed dropped immediately. I attempted to slow down to about 500 km/h, so that I could make visual contact with the ground. However, this was very difficult. Just as the indicator hit the desired mark, I left the cloud in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters [1,600 feet] above the ground. The canopy had now warmed up and defrosted, and I could see again in all directions. Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unbelievable happened—the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude, from which I could then pull out with the help of the trim wheel! At my terminal speed, the engine cowling panels had torn off, and oil lines had split open from overpressure, but I could see again, and had my bird under control. I flew to Rheine, about three or four minutes away, without touching the throttle, my speed decreasing slowly. I landed my oil-smeared bird smoothly, and returned to Plantluenne by “Kuebelwagen,” a kind of jeep. Probably my good friend Helmut Lohrberg had had similar problems with icing, and had not been as lucky as I. He has been missing since this flight. As I stood on the landing ground at Rheine after landing, I heard three aircraft crash with overstraining engines, all right around Rheine! To this day, I have not been able to strike these ghastly noises from my memory.

On 14 December it was the turn of III/JG 26. Uffz. Heinz Gehrke received the assignment prized most highly by the 11th Staffel’s wingmen—he would fly with Obfw. Karl “Karlchen” Laub. Near Rheine, Laub and Gehrke were attacked from above and behind. Heinz Gehrke recalls:

Laub took in the situation immediately, began a split-S—unfortunately, very near the ground—and attempted to escape the hail of shells by coming around onto a reverse course. Always cognizant of my duty as a Rottenflieger, I turned with him. It was very difficult to regain control before hitting the ground. We were not very high—below 600 meters [2,000 feet]. During the split-S we naturally built up a great deal of speed. I saw very clearly that a wing fairing on Laub’s aircraft had come loose. It didn’t fly off, however, because it was secured by a cable. This circumstance led to Laub’s crash. He could no longer counter the forces involved, and rushed straight toward the ground. I was no more than sixty meters from him, and saw him crash. I pulled my aircraft up to determine the exact location, and my 109 was hit. A shell ripped through my canopy and instrument panel. There was a horrible noise, and I was suddenly outside the aircraft. I hung from my chute for only a few seconds, and then I was on the ground for the fourth time. Fortunately, I had received only a few splinters in my legs. A friendly neighbor brought me back the few miles to Plantluenne by motorcycle. Here I was able to report the fate of Obfw. Laub. I was not able to hide my tears, which streamed down my cheeks; my nerves were shot. Ask any member of the 11th Staffel—Karlchen Laub was one of the best in the Third Gruppe.

“At about 10,000 feet the e/a started a yellow smoke trail and immediately the left wing came off.”

”My I.A.S. was 600 and I hit compressibility at 15,000 feet, resulting in violent buffeting and oscillation of my ship. I noticed the Me 109 in the same condition; he was bucking and skidding violently. At about 10,000 feet his right wing ripped off about 4 feet from the fuselage”

"Just before getting into the clouds the Me109's left wing tore off ..."

"He snapped over into a vicious spin and I followed him until I saw the right wing come off ..."

All that being said, maybe the various wing losses in dives are completely unrelated to those from battle damage as you say. Anyway, here are some more gun camera films of 109's having their wings shot off:

Nov 27th, 1944 - P-51D attacking 109

January 2nd, 1945 - P-51D attacking 109

Jan 14th, 1945 - P-47D attacking 109 - appears to be a cannon magazine or O2 bottle detonation which I'm not sure is possible in game right now with the 109

Sept 1944 - wing lost to explosion of some sort

Sept 1944

Here are 18 examples of RAF pilot AAR's (mostly from Spitfires but a few Tempests) describing various engagements using 20mm Hispanos against 109s resulting in a wing being shot off - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B72vulR6UepTSdi69tqEsbAVsCEN1uk21ZaZc9nebOk/edit?usp=drive_link

Based on the mention of gun cameras, we could talk about every other weapon and aircraft as well.

It's not uncommon to see gun camera footage showing that 2-4 hits from a 20mm cannon were enough to bring down a Russian plane. In the game, this is either not the case or happens randomly. For instance, a 30mm shell still doesn’t rip a Spitfire’s wing off with a single shot, even though British tests highlighted this issue.

Somehow, I didn’t see your comment on the P-39 when I provided in-game video evidence showing that the plane loses its wing only after 9 hits from a 30mm cannon.

So, as Emperor also stated, the goal isn’t to make it impossible to shoot down the 109, but compared to other planes, it loses its wings disproportionately easily.

January 19

9 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

You're leaving out some key pieces of the story here as described in those reports. In order to "widely exceed that dive speed limit" they had to limit aileron travel to 50% of a production aircraft, and in his account of the dive testing Lukas Schmid describes multiple cases where this prevented disaster, both with an without the tall tail. Additionally a much larger trim tab had to be fitted to the aircraft, and the trim locked in a specific position in order to allow the aircraft to both maintain the dive and then recover.

What do either of those things have to do with the strength of the wing itself?

January 19

I think it's important to distinguish here between inherent design... and... declining material supply/quality, forced/unskilled labour, sabotage, factory conditions (being bombed) and manufacturing issues in general that are well below design specifications.

You could easily counter many of the quotes, reports, real life gun camera footage of apparent wing failures by the equally plentiful footage of US fighters shooting up wings of Bf 109's with no structural failure or substantial effect/result... it doesn't really validate that the wings were fragile in design. We can't interrogate the condition of the aircraft or amount of underlying damage or fatigue to take much away from that - multiple factors can be at play.

Notably, the Finnish pilots flew Bf 109 G's over 900km/h in dives and described this in detail so it's clearly not an inherent design issue of the wing not being structurally capable of high stress etc. This is a very different point to premature failure, fragility of wings to minimal combat damage ingame.

I'll play devil's advocate for KW's sake to balance this commentary out. At the end of the war yes there were lower/poor quality alloys, materials used in structures and defects with the wooden tall tail (adhesive bonding etc) which affected the Bf 109, poorly constructed assemblies, misaligned trim tabs and deliberate sabotage occurred as the situation declined for Germany strategically.

Yes, these could contribute to structural failure, aggressive aileron oscillation was one such example... the P-51, for example; like any other aircraft capable of high speeds was not immune to such issues either and I have recorded testimony from a real life test pilot who was nearly killed by this on a modern test flight in a dive with oscillating control surfaces - at speeds well below 400mph. It was found afterwards that there were loose bolts in the rudder connecting to the tailplane and issues with a broken rudder trim tab. The point is, when manufactured, assembled and maintained correctly as they are meant to be, these types of issues should not be present and they're not reflective of the aircraft's specification.

Flight sims are trying to simulate aircraft to a designed/known specification, if it tried to simulate every aspect of manufacturing defect, poor maintenance or change occurring under inadequate factory, workshop or field conditions then almost everytime the US aircraft would be advantaged because their factories were thousands of miles away from the war and not subject to so many of these conditions.

It's not in the interest of the player base to contend with unpredictable failures outside of their reasonable control. It's a combat flight sim not a real world like for like reproduction of WW2, you can't realistically have that in a game - if it was, then no one would fly Luftwaffe aircraft in that time period and that's not a good compromise for gameplay.

Edited January 19 by Aurora_Stealth

January 19

9 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Again, I am not saying that the wings shouldnt be able to be shot off.

and late war production quality issues did certainly played its part irl (as ammuntion storage in the wing).

But on paper (what the game is based of) the 109s wing seems not more or less strong (or weak) than its counterparts and shouldnt be so easy to clip, as it is now the case

I get that, I’m just trying to add some evidence to help identify what’s right or wrong vs what’s presently happening in game. For instance, it’s interesting that there seem to be multiple different ways this occurred in the real world - direct structural damage (presumably strikes to the spar) as seen in most of the video from .50s vs. secondary effect from what appears to be the cannon magazine getting detonated (which seems to be most of the RAF pilot reports when engaging with Hispanos) vs. diving stresses (possibly combined with structural damage etc).

January 20

What I have read about 109 wing issue, it was mostly 109F model, which was suffering from this issue. I have some shelf meters of WW2 aviation, mostly seen from LW point of view, and 109Fs weak wing is mentioned in several books.

January 20

On 1/20/2025 at 8:56 AM, GasTeddy said:

What I have read about 109 wing issue, it was mostly 109F model, which was suffering from this issue. I have some shelf meters of WW2 aviation, mostly seen from LW point of view, and 109Fs weak wing is mentioned in several books.

I'll try and speak to this, as it's a fair point but I feel we're somewhat drifting off again.

From an actual design perspective there were some structural weaknesses in the early F-1, F-2 models but this was mainly due to the redesigned tailplane changed from the E model. The wing spar was also lightened, but generally of a more distributed and better design which actually used superior (stronger) alloys in the wings compared to the Bf 109 E.

That being said... as you mention, the wing appeared to be failing on it's own in some cases through high G and needed further strengthening to cope with certain loads. A key point to highlight is that overloading, structural deformation and fatigue was easier to achieve in the F models than the E, as the wing was allowing for a greater effective combat maneuvering speed and associated G (including when in a dive). This is ironically due mainly to the wing's improved aerodynamic efficiency at high speed as a result of the redesign in the F.

Just as a side note, it was noted that the use of excessive elevator trim by pilots contributed to these issues, especially in a dive pull out... causing a rapid shift/peak in G loading and yes could cause deformation, cracking and catastrophic structural failure in wings (as it could in other similar aircraft depending on their charactetistics).

In any case, these issues were fully rectified in the F-4 model (edit with thanks to @Roland_HUNter : it appears tail reinforcement was also retrospectively applied to the earlier F-2 variants). Reinforcement of the tailplane, and additional internal bracing in the wing was added on the F-4 to ensure greater strength and safety margin. These structures were subsequently reinforced again with the Bf 109 G to compensate for the increase in payloads including wing mounted armaments etc.

As a general point though, most of the contemporary fighters did encounter catastrophic tailplane and wing failures at one point or another in their evolving combat service. This could be directly symptomatic of structural weaknesses (as in the case of the Bf 109 F-1/F-2), or as a knock-on impact from flutter, the effects of compressibility etc while executing high speed dives and high G.

The Spitfire V, early Typhoon, early P-38, P-51 B, Yak 9 are all examples of fighters that experienced issues with catastrophic tailplane and/or wing failures of some nature... but weren't necessarily considered structurally weak, many of which were modified or reinforced in later variants to ensure they could cope with certain structural or aerodynamic loads at high speed to maintain stability and control.

Edited January 21 by Aurora_Stealth
Adding note on F-2 reinforcement, adding payload increase ref's

January 20

6 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I'll try and speak to this, as it's a fair point but I feel we're somewhat drifting off again.

From an actual design perspective there were some structural weaknesses in the early F-1, F-2 models but this was mainly due to the redesigned tailplane changed from the E model. The wing spar was also lightened, but generally of a more distributed and better design which actually used superior (stronger) alloys in the wings compared to the Bf 109 E.

That being said... as you mention, the wing appeared to be failing on it's own in some cases through high G and needed further strengthening to cope with certain loads. A key point to highlight is that overloading, structural deformation and fatigue was easier to achieve in the F models than the E, as the wing was allowing for a greater effective combat maneuvering speed and associated G (including when in a dive). This is ironically due mainly to the wing's improved aerodynamic efficiency at high speed as a result of the redesign in the F.

Just as a side note, it was noted that the use of excessive elevator trim by pilots contributed to these issues, especially in a dive pull out... causing a rapid shift/peak in G loading and yes could cause deformation, cracking and catastrophic structural failure in wings (as it could in other similar aircraft depending on their charactetistics).

In any case, the issues were rectified in the F-4 model, mainly by reinforcing the tailplane but other changes were made to reinforce the wing internal bracing to add more strength and safety margin. These structures were subsequently reinforced again with the Bf 109 G.

As a general point though, most of the contemporary fighters did encounter catastrophic tailplane and wing failures at one point or another in their evolving combat service. This could be directly symptomatic of structural weaknesses (as in the case of the Bf 109 F-1/F-2), or as a knock-on impact from flutter, the effects of compressibility etc.

The Spitfire V, early Typhoon, early P-38, P-51 B, Yak 9 are all examples of fighters that experienced issues with catastrophic tailplane and/or wing failures of some nature... but weren't necessarily considered structurally weak, many of which were modified or reinforced in later variants to ensure they could cope with certain structural or aerodynamic loads at high speed to maintain stability and control.

Ingame F2s has fixed tail sections.

The additional tail reinforcement is already present on the F2 aircraft.

January 20

Your going to have to narrow it down, not all 109 versions share the exact same damage modeling, like the G-AS variant which has an alarming tendency to lose its vertical tail at the slightest sneeze, no other 109 shares in that specific vulnerability at that frequency. There's always oddities, remember way back when the Dora would lose its entire vertical tail and keep on trucking with regularity.

There's many other types that have specific vulnerabilities like certain models of IL-2's you want to shoot from the side with deflection to knock off their vertical stabs in an instant with one hit. Or the Peshka in the left wing root from above to crack it in half. They're annoying and repetitive in some cases and you can learn them for exploit, in the end it is still a game.

January 21

On 1/17/2025 at 8:03 AM, the_emperor said:

One 20mm Hispano Hit to clip a G-6 wing.

https://easyupload.io/5urv0e

Just to mention, I've been able to repeat this myself now a few times shooting at the G-2, G-4; while testing other variants.

A single 20mm Hispano hit from 200m - 300m, hitting about half the length down the wing (and in a different case two thirds of the way down the wing) caused the wing to show extensive visual damage with substantial holes showing exposed section of spar and structure. I'll upload the images later when I return again to my home PC. After a second or two of flight passing (no significant maneuvering)... one third of the end of the wing broke off.

It seems quite unrealistic that a single 20mm shell would cause such substantial damage to the wing structure to cause critical failure. It was interesting to see that there was no notable maneuvering to encourage the wing section to break either.

Separately, I tested using .303 and .50 calibres and while certain models of the Bf 109 seemed to be able to sustain cumulative damage across the length of the wings... failure still occurred despite a lack of damage concentration. The .303 rounds should in reality inflict a pea sized hole (if they even make it far past the skin and significant structure to get to the main spar). This again seems unrealistic, there would need to be an awful lot of these bullets to weaken structure like this; possibly hundreds of strikes around a certain section of the wing.

Just my thoughts, will keep testing different scenarios.

January 21

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Separately, I tested using .303 and .50 calibres and while certain models of the Bf 109 seemed to be able to sustain cumulative damage across the length of the wings... failure still occurred despite a lack of damage concentration. The .303 rounds should in reality inflict a pea sized hole (if they even make it far past the skin and significant structure to get to the main spar). This again seems unrealistic, there would need to be an awful lot of these bullets to weaken structure like this; possibly hundreds of strikes around a certain section of the wing.

Though I guess tumbling must be taken into account...this was brought up in regards to the aerodynamic drag penalty of AP vs HE rounds...

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

It seems quite unrealistic that a single 20mm shell would cause such substantial damage to the wing structure to cause critical failure. It was interesting to see that there was no notable maneuvering to encourage the wing section to break either.

One has to keep in mind, that the Hispano 20mm carried the least amount of HE compared to other 20mm (5.6g Tetryl) and no with no delay fuze for roughly 40 microseconds till shell rapture after upon contact .

The game gives the Hispano 11.3g HE...which is a mistake by the devs (been ringing that bell for quite some time and hopefully that gets fixed), who took the 11.3g as HE only but irl it was 50:50 HE / Incendiary

Edited January 21 by the_emperor

April 22

Guys, please check this after downloading the latest update and see if the issue is now fixed.

April 23

Test result:
LA5FN, only HE ammunition.
The wing has visibly become stronger.
Observation: 4 hits next to the Balkenkreuz cut off the wing. This is also visible in the video.

https://easyupload.io/fvoqwa

April 23

Test result:
The wing has visibly become stronger.
Yak-9:
12.7: 11-12 (18-30 for emil) hits next to the Balkenkreuz cut off the wing. This is also visible in the video.
20: 4-5 hits next to the Balkenkreuz cut off the wing. This is also visible in the video.

https://easyupload.io/qudgsk

Test result:
The wing has visibly become stronger.
Spit IX:
50 cal: 64 hits next to the Balkenkreuz cut off the wing. 14 hits for the outer wing.
20mm Hispano: 5-8 (18-20 for emil) hits next to the Balkenkreuz cut off the wing. This is also visible in the video.

https://easyupload.io/h453hw

Hurricane 4x20mm:
At the end of the video you can wing off an F series with 2-3 hits next to the Balkenkreuz.

https://easyupload.io/0vvlsw

April 23

What about 109 wing?

April 23

The wing became somewhat stronger, but when I tested it in action on Berloga, 8 out of 10 109s still lost their wing very easily — and I’m not talking about just the wingtip, the wing kept breaking off from around the halfway point.

Meanwhile, my La-5 can still remain combat-capable even after taking a lot of hits.

About the 109 glas wing....

Recommended Posts

the_emperor

Roland_HUNter

LukeFF

357th_KW

the_emperor

1PL-Husar-1Esk

Hanu

the_emperor

Aurora_Stealth

AndyJWest

Aurora_Stealth

AndyJWest

Aurora_Stealth

AndyJWest

the_emperor

the_emperor

Kurfurst

the_emperor

Roland_HUNter

I./JG68_Sperber

LukeFF

the_emperor

the_emperor

357th_KW

the_emperor

Roland_HUNter

Aapje

Aurora_Stealth

357th_KW

GasTeddy

Aurora_Stealth

Roland_HUNter

[CPT]Crunch

Aurora_Stealth

the_emperor

LukeFF

Roland_HUNter

Roland_HUNter

1PL-Husar-1Esk

Roland_HUNter

Browse All

Activity