me 109

[cheezyflier]

i am reading a book about the Messerschmidt, called ME 109.
it is by ballantine books, it was published in 1968. it covers all the variants and talks in great detail about it's role in germany's air force, and how it stacked up to other planes of it's day. it's very interesting. it's part of a series of books on ww2. i picked it up along with a few others in a book swap. i also got
PT boats
The siege of Leningrad
D-Day
MacArthur
U-boat
Tarawa

pretty cool stuff. i'm learning alot :applause: there's also lots of cool pics, too.

[Bjoern]

and how it stacked up to other planes of it's day

It could compete from the first to the last second.

The K-4 was even faster than a P-51 at altitude.

[cheezyflier]

It could compete from the first to the last second.

The K-4 was even faster than a P-51 at altitude.

according to what i am reading, it was the standard by which all others were judged, up until the later part of the war. by then, innovations by the brits and america were beginning to really have an effect. it seems, according to the book, it's only real flaw was lack of range, initially. the author claim's germany's airforce would have been unstoppable if not for flawed strategy, and the lack of range on the 109. i was really blown away to learn that it had a service ceiling of 38,000 ft.

[aeronca1]

That Ballantine series was great. I had several, but unfortunately, they do not age well. Mine all fell apart from the glue powdering and the pages falling out. They had a couple of really good titles on the Arab-Israeli conflict as well. I wish they would all be reissued using better quality paper and glue!

[Bjoern]

it seems, according to the book, it's only real flaw was lack of range, initially.

Yeah, it's one of the, if not the biggest drawback of the 109.
However, it was conceived as a point-defense fighter only and suited for missions over the western continent rather than combat over the wide nothingness of the russian plains or deep penetration raids over a channel.

I usually run out of fuel instead of ammo in IL-2. Especially the later models with the DB-603/605 are thirsty like heck.


the author claim's germany's airforce would have been unstoppable if not for flawed strategy, and the lack of range on the 109.

Well, I say if it wasn't for the Blitz, the RAF would have ceased to operate in southern England by late fall. So yeah, wrong strategy indeed.

The short range was compensated for by the introduction of the Fw-190. I think they had a way higher endurance than their smaller brother.


i was really blown away to learn that it had a service ceiling of 38,000 ft.

That was something new?

If you read at least a bit about allied bomber crews being attacked by the Luftwaffe you should have already had an idea about the maximum ceiling of a 109. ;)

It's also interesting that many of the highest scoring aces were 109ers.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

It sure was (more than) a match for most allied fighters. The narrow track landing gear and tendency to swing violently didn't make for an easy ride for a novice pilot. In that respect I more like the Focke Wulf.

But for it's day (the early years of the war) it was a terrific design. In the end the good old Spitfire was still better of course :running:.

Don't know if you have already read something about the Spanish licence-built versions, made by CASA...ironically, they were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlins, their number 1 enemy during the Battle of Britain :D.

This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vdbj/4140647980/in/set-72157622766151521/) is one (in case you haven't seen any pictures of it yet). Some of them were used for the filming of the Battle of Britain film (I thought it was released in 1969 ?).

My favorite warbirds are the Spitfire, Hurricane, and the P-38 Lightning.

[Bjoern]

The narrow track landing gear and tendency to swing violently didn't make for an easy ride for a novice pilot.

The Spitfire's landing gear was narrower.

If IL-2 is just a halfway realistic attempt at replicating the 109 I don't find it as hard to take-off as it's said to be.


But for it's day (the early years of the war) it was a terrific design. In the end the good old Spitfire was still better of course :running:.

The only acceptable versions of the Spitfire are the later ones, preferably with a bubble canopy.


Don't know if you have already read something about the Spanish licence-built versions, made by CASA...ironically, they were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlins, their number 1 enemy during the Battle of Britain :D.

Awful. That Merlin ruins just about everything about the 109.


Generally a good read about the 109:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

[cheezyflier]

That was something new?

If you read at least a bit about allied bomber crews being attacked by the Luftwaffe you should have already had an idea about the maximum ceiling of a 109. ;)


i wasn't really that interested in the ww2 birds initially. i'm more of a g/a guy. but now that i have learned a little, it's very interesting, i'll eventually look for more.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

The 'Galland' hood as I presume it was called wasn't introduced until the G-10 came up (Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of the world's combat aircraft, 1976). I thought I read somewhere else many Mustang pilots actually preferred the -B version with it's Malcolm hood over the -D with the teardrop/bubble canopy.

I, personally, still more like a Spitfire with it's classic hood instead of something like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vdbj/4260061882/). It's like a Beaver with a turboprop engine fitted to it - it's still great, but the original is still better :).

My favorite Spitfire variant is the IX, an updated Mk.V with higher-rated Merlin. I never liked the Griffon variants as much as the Merlin ones.

Regarding the IL-2 comment, I don't have Il-2 but I didn't find it that hard to fly either in old CFS3.

But since it is mentioned in various books and websites it must have been a problem for the Luftwaffe's young, unexperienced fighter pilots. Haven't read that many complaints so far about the Spit's landing gear during land operations. I could be wrong of course :mixedsmi:. It may have been tricky to land as well (they even invented a special approach for it: the Spitfire approach) but perhaps just a little easier than the 109...

For carrier operations the Sea Hurricane was easier to land than the Seafire, again thanks to it's landing gear.

The 190 had less problems. Could take more punishment as well thanks to it's radial engine.

I reckon the 109 had a light in the cockpit indicating to the pilot he had only a certain amount of fuel left anymore, barely enough to make it back to then-occupied France if I remember that correctly.

Eventually it all comes down to tactics and the pilot, not just the aircraft ;). There are lots of truly great aircraft...

[Bjoern]

i wasn't really that interested in the ww2 birds initially. i'm more of a g/a guy. but now that i have learned a little, it's very interesting, i'll eventually look for more.

Ah. Didn't know that. I assumed everyone here except me is a warbid nut. :icon_lol:




The 'Galland' hood as I presume it was called wasn't introduced until the G-10 came up (Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of the world's combat aircraft, 1976).

Not sure, but I think some later G6s had them already.


The 190 had less problems. Could take more punishment as well thanks to it's radial engine.

They had a nasty tendency to stall out in tight turns, something that the 109 didn't have. They were also not really good climbers.

If I had to attack a bomber formation, the 190 would have been my tool of choice for its durability and firepower. In a dogfight however, the 109 was far better suited to the task.


I reckon the 109 had a light in the cockpit indicating to the pilot he had only a certain amount of fuel left anymore, barely enough to make it back to then-occupied France if I remember that correctly.

Yeah. Actually, if it hadn't been for strict close-distance bombersitting, the 109s could have had a bit more time over the island for hunting.
But the fatso in Berlin wanted it *his* way...

[Cazzie]

It always strikes me as something I do not want, when the title is Me-109 instead of Bf-109. Somebody forgot the very basics of his homework!

Caz

[aeronca1]

It always strikes me as something I do not want, when the title is Me-109 instead of Bf-109. Somebody forgot the very basics of his homework!

Caz

LOL, you're correct, and the author even owned a Bf-108.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

However, in the author's defence...the manufacturer Willy Messerschmitt worked for was Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft - hence the Bf prefix).

It was only in 1938 it was officially changed to Messerschmitt AG (Aktionengesellschaft) with him as chairman and managing director. That's more than three years after the prototype's first flight (see quote below).The era of the Emil and Friedrich (-E and -F variants), the backbone of the Luftwaffe at the time...during Fall Gelb and the invasion of France starting 10th of May, 1940...this year it's exactly 70 years ago (same goes for Battle of Britain since it was in the same year).

So in my opinion he is partially correct. I'd rather suggest renaming the book Bf 109 - Me 109.


The renaming of BFW resulted in the company's RLM* designation changing from Bf to Me for all newer designs after the acquisition date.

*: Reichsluftfahrtministerium: similar to Britain's Air Ministry.

[Cazzie]

However, in the author's defence...the manufacturer Willy Messerschmitt worked for was Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft - hence the Bf prefix).

It was only in 1938 it was officially changed to Messerschmitt AG (Aktionengesellschaft) with him as chairman and managing director. That's more than three years after the prototype's first flight (see quote below).The era of the Emil and Friedrich (-E and -F variants), the backbone of the Luftwaffe at the time...during Fall Gelb and the invasion of France starting 10th of May, 1940...this year it's exactly 70 years ago (same goes for Battle of Britain since it was in the same year).

So in my opinion he is partially correct. I'd rather suggest renaming the book Bf 109 - Me 109.



*: Reichsluftfahrtministerium: similar to Britain's Air Ministry.

Joris, you're a young man, so I want you to find any German publication from the era and show me any One-Oh-Nine that bears the Me, there is none. It was Bf-109 right up through the final K model. the first Messerschmitt fight to be called an Me was the test 209 and the first to actually have Me was the 163.

No argument here, I just want to set the record straight, there is so little of that these days, the PC history rewriters will have it as Me-109 sooner or later, but not while I am alive!

Caz

[JorisVandenBerghe]

A friend of mine of your age has got a whole bunch of the WW2 era German kind of 'magazine' Signal. I'll ask him and I'll see if he can find anything :icon_lol:...


The renaming of BFW resulted in the company's RLM designation changing from Bf to Me for all newer designs after the acquisition date.
Now, seriously, I assume one means entirely new designs, rather than redesigns of an aircraft (like the P-38J or -H compared to the -F for instance) ?
In that case you're right of course. But if one would assume a redesign is a design by itself...

I wonder of which variant people think when one starts talking about the one-oh-nine (:mixedsmi:). For me it are the early variants, before 1941...

[Bjoern]

It always strikes me as something I do not want, when the title is Me-109 instead of Bf-109. Somebody forgot the very basics of his homework!

Yeah, it was contract work, but both manufacturer names can be applied.

Personally, I pefer the "Bf" though.




the first Messerschmitt fight to be called an Me was the test 209 and the first to actually have Me was the 163.

Wrong. Me-210.

[hewman100]

.

Awful. That Merlin ruins just about everything about the 109.



The thing you must remember is that the prototype 109 was powered by a Rolls Royce Kestrel IIRC. ;)

The engine was the Merlin's predecessor.

[Bjoern]

The thing you must remember is that the prototype 109 was powered by a Rolls Royce Kestrel IIRC. ;)

The engine was the Merlin's predecessor.

I know, but it still looked better with the Kestrel than with the Merlin.