PDA

View Full Version : Discussion about the real-life BF-109.



XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:25 PM
I decided to make this new topic because I had an argument in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuqge

(I let myself go a bit too much, I just got tired of whining)

I stated that the BF-109 was outdated by 1942. I heard this while watching discovery channel (I live in holland) and was quite amazed as anybody would be.

There motivation was like this: the 109 was designed for the blitzkrieg, to protect the STUKA's. This tactic required small, light aircraft that could be in the air very fast and they didn't need to fly very far because, they would always be stationed near the frontline. You can clearly see it with the Ju-87. This is a hit and run aircraft, designed purely for scaring the hell out of the enemy and precision bombing. The He-111 was designed to harras enemy supply lines and relied on their speed and the long-range BF-110 for protection.

The Bf-109 was outdated by 1942 (maybe even 1941) because:

1. It was a light aircraft, wich coouldn't carry alot of armament.
2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts with its big distances)
3. It was cramped (any pilot who flew it will tell you, not a big issue either)
4. Because of the light construction, not alot of protection could be added.
5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings or, just taxing)
6. The light construction meant that, new and heavier engines and armament where difficult to install and difficult to fly with. That's why the K4 wasn't a real succes. they first tried putting 15mm guns on the cowling and a MK-103 in the nose....

Anyways, i don't want to tear down the Bf-109 because, it can be a joy to fly and fight with but, this is what I believe is true.


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:25 PM
I decided to make this new topic because I had an argument in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuqge

(I let myself go a bit too much, I just got tired of whining)

I stated that the BF-109 was outdated by 1942. I heard this while watching discovery channel (I live in holland) and was quite amazed as anybody would be.

There motivation was like this: the 109 was designed for the blitzkrieg, to protect the STUKA's. This tactic required small, light aircraft that could be in the air very fast and they didn't need to fly very far because, they would always be stationed near the frontline. You can clearly see it with the Ju-87. This is a hit and run aircraft, designed purely for scaring the hell out of the enemy and precision bombing. The He-111 was designed to harras enemy supply lines and relied on their speed and the long-range BF-110 for protection.

The Bf-109 was outdated by 1942 (maybe even 1941) because:

1. It was a light aircraft, wich coouldn't carry alot of armament.
2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts with its big distances)
3. It was cramped (any pilot who flew it will tell you, not a big issue either)
4. Because of the light construction, not alot of protection could be added.
5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings or, just taxing)
6. The light construction meant that, new and heavier engines and armament where difficult to install and difficult to fly with. That's why the K4 wasn't a real succes. they first tried putting 15mm guns on the cowling and a MK-103 in the nose....

Anyways, i don't want to tear down the Bf-109 because, it can be a joy to fly and fight with but, this is what I believe is true.


1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:39 PM
In my opinion, they should have relied on Fw 190 as a basis fighter series. It was a more modern concept plane, and allowed further development. Bf 109 Gs and Ks were pathetic efforts to maintain the old design up-to-date, and had only relative success.

The main failure in German development politics was dispersion. They made awesome progress on aeronautical technology, but they were unconfident, and remained too linked to an obsolescent formula.

Last versions of 109 were too heavy, and they tried to overcome this with sheer engine power. This made them difficult, unpleasant planes.

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:41 PM
DuxCorvan wrote:
-
- The main failure in German development politics was
- dispersion. They made awesome progress on
- aeronautical technology, but they were unconfident,
- and remained too linked to an obsolescent formula.
-
- Last versions of 109 were too heavy, and they tried
- to overcome this with sheer engine power. This made
- them difficult, unpleasant planes.
-
AND they had Hitler interfering with everything. But, it was good that the war is over.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:48 PM
I agree with your comment that the Fw-190 should have been the "basis" for main fighter development. I believe the Fw-190A, and later Ds, were the best, most versatile, piston fighters produced by Germany.

As far which was the better fighter, US pilots generally tended to agree that the Fw was the more dangerous fighter.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:58 PM
How about the TA-152H?

It was faster than the P-51D!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:11 AM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-

-
- The Bf-109 was outdated by 1942 (maybe even 1941)
- because:
-
- 1. It was a light aircraft, wich coouldn't carry
- alot of armament.
- 2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB
- but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts
- with its big distances)
- 3. It was cramped (any pilot who flew it will tell
- you, not a big issue either)
- 4. Because of the light construction, not alot of
- protection could be added.
- 5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings
- or, just taxing)
- 6. The light construction meant that, new and
- heavier engines and armament where difficult to
- install and difficult to fly with. That's why the K4
- wasn't a real succes. they first tried putting 15mm
- guns on the cowling and a MK-103 in the nose....
-


I agree with your basic points, I think it's pretty well documented that the 109 was kept in service due to logistical constraints that prevented Germany from switching over the FW series completely. For production reasons it was simpler to upgrade them with larger and larger engines to keep production up rather than concentrate only on the FW with a corresponding loss of numbers. I believe the FW was also a more costly fighter to produce and took longer to build, though to what degree I am not sure.

War fighting in general is governed by production more so than quality. You can look back in history to find many examples of outdated equipment that is still in production simply because it is a known concept, easy to build and allows greater numbers to be fielded.


I personally think the 109 was outmatched by the 190, but if employed properly was still effective in combat. Just because one fighter is better than another does not mean the lesser fighter cannot perform it's role.



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:19 AM
TX-Zen wrote:
-
-
- I personally think the 109 was outmatched by the
- 190, but if employed properly was still effective in
- combat. Just because one fighter is better than
- another does not mean the lesser fighter cannot
- perform it's role.
-
-
-
I agree! the bf-109 can still be dangerous, especially with the now improved mk-108.

The point is, some ppl expect the bf-109 to outclass the mid and late war VVS planes completly. Wich is not historical correct. But it still can be quite deadly and dangerous. (opposed to the CFS version of the 109)

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:23 AM
a magnificent airplane no doubt but developed from the 190 (it was given the suffix Ta in honour of Kurt Tank).

Thought this thread might have started a slightly more lively discussion, but from what I know, I think you're right. Guess we'll have to wait for Hungary to open tomorrow!!!

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:27 AM
That brings us to Yaks too .. were Yaks really that effective design? They were even lighter than BF-109, smaller, very vulnerable to damage, not much ammo.. poor Diver.. and poor high altitude perfomance .. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Poor B&Z-plane..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

adlabs6
09-13-2003, 12:33 AM
Those points fit in with other materials I've read on the 109. The 109 is more popular in this sim and the K4 above all others due to the nose cannon, and will remain so regardless of history. I can't imagine lots of 109 players switching to the 190 series, even if they were superior machines.

Thanks for the info on the TV program, BTW. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:35 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
- Those points fit in with other materials I've read
- on the 109. The 109 is more popular in this sim and
- the K4 above all others due to the nose cannon, and
- I can't
- imagine lots of 109 players switching to the 190
- series, even if they were superior machines.
-
I did /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (sometimes I still fly the 109)

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:55 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- How about the TA-152H?
-
- It was faster than the P-51D!
-
-

yep it was faster at altitude and I am sure that all 50 of them made a significant impact on the war when they arrived in march of 45

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:08 AM
I agree that the 190 was superior to the late 109s in general. the 109s became more & more difficult to fly & were not suited for multiple roles as well as the 190. engine torque seems to have been quite a problem & the high accident rate of 109s alone was bad for business.

As for the Yaks , I think they were pretty good designs as proven by the Yak 3 with it's higher horsepowere engine. The DB series in the 109s was a great engine & the equal to the Merlin, the Soviets didn't have this. The Yaks could only be improved so much with the same old Klimov they started the war with. They had problems , the low dive speed being the greatest probably, but the Soviets produced good airframe designs even if production quality was bad.

Indeed after teh 109f, I think only Daimler Benz kept the 109 competitive. i always wondered what would have happened if they had married the 109s engine with the FW airframe instead of continuing to produce 109s . Guess they 'd have have the equivalent of the 190D much sooner. (?)

Of course hindsight is 20/20 & the need to maintain production numbers & other problems could have made the co-production of both a/c the best choice as has been pointed out.
(disclaimer, i may not know what i'm talking about but..er..well....i say it anyway!

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:38 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:
-
-
- Indeed after teh 109f, I think only Daimler Benz
- kept the 109 competitive. i always wondered what
- would have happened if they had married the 109s
- engine with the FW airframe instead of continuing to
- produce 109s . Guess they 'd have have the
- equivalent of the 190D much sooner. (?)
-
-
-

Tank wanted to put the DB in the Fw but was not allowed to.



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:28 AM
In what way do points 1 aned 6 differ?
I recon a light aircraft usually means a light construction and therefore a restriction to the usage of lighter parts which are usually less powerfull.

Exept for the light construction = light equipment arguement, which I fully support,
I think there's one more reason for the 109's failure:

<DL>
<DT> Bad visibility
<DD> Loose sight loose the fight (if the enemy is spotted at all)
<DD>the fact that in thw whole series there never has been any succesfull attempt to install some kind of bubble canopy to imcrease all-round visibility, but rearward visibility in particular. The 309 might be just that, but that was more a totally new design which failed in many respects and therefore never made it. I recon the bulges installed on the later 109 pits were only a half hearted attempt to do something similar.


http://picserver.student.utwente.nl/getpicture.php?id=17231
visit the 17th (http://ocf81.tripod.com/)


"If the radiance of a thousand suns

Were to burst at once into the sky

That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...

I am become Death

The shatterer of Worlds.

" Bhagavad Gita

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:54 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- How about the TA-152H?
-
- It was faster than the P-51D!

Down low the Ta 152H could attain 580km/h, about 60km/ slower than the fastest D-9. However at altitude the Ta 152H could reach 768km/h. The fastest D version would be the D-11, D-12 and D-13. The D-12 had a topspeed of 760km/h at 12500m. It's a good thing the Ta 152C never saw any major production numbers. It was a superior fighter even with the DB603L engine. Imagine if it was fitted with the projected Jumo 224, a 24 cylinder diesel engine with counter rotating props capable of delievering 4000hp. Or perhaps the projected 5000hp Jumo 225./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:54 AM
108mk is a bomber killer ,i like the 20m ,its power to weight thing,your chose

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:11 PM
ocf81 wrote:
- <DT> Bad visibility
- <DD> Loose sight loose the fight (if the enemy is
- spotted at all)
- <DD>the fact that in thw whole series there never
- has been any succesfull attempt to install some kind
- of bubble canopy to imcrease all-round visibility,
- but rearward visibility in particular. The 309 might
- be just that, but that was more a totally new design
- which failed in many respects and therefore never
- made it. I recon the bulges installed on the later
- 109 pits were only a half hearted attempt to do
- something similar.
-
-
I forgot that one yes. the sight out of the cockpit (especially to the front) was quite bad.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:17 PM
Platypus ->

Most of your arguments apply to the VVS-fighters also http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 190 had been a better bases...but remember that the Messerschmit-corporation came out with a very good plane still. 109 was competitive until the end and the ME262 was superior to anything out at that time.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:18 PM
And oh yeah...

I wouldn't trust the Discovery Channel. We all here are better 109-experts than that channel.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:25 PM
robban75 wrote:
-
- VOL_Jon wrote:
-- How about the TA-152H?
--
-- It was faster than the P-51D!
-
- Down low the Ta 152H could attain 580km/h, about
- 60km/ slower than the fastest D-9. However at
- altitude the Ta 152H could reach 768km/h. The
- fastest D version would be the D-11, D-12 and D-13.
- The D-12 had a topspeed of 760km/h at 12500m. It's a
- good thing the Ta 152C never saw any major
- production numbers. It was a superior fighter even
- with the DB603L engine. Imagine if it was fitted
- with the projected Jumo 224, a 24 cylinder diesel
- engine with counter rotating props capable of
- delievering 4000hp. Or perhaps the projected 5000hp
- Jumo 225./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG

A Ta 152 with a 4000 or 5000hp engine? Jeez, that thing would have outperformed the early jets at high altitude!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I want one.
-
-
- 'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky
- than good any day!'



"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:34 PM
Demolisher_ wrote:

- A Ta 152 with a 4000 or 5000hp engine? Jeez, that
- thing would have outperformed the early jets at high
- altitude, I want one.

And so did the German Luftwaffe, but there was no time for it. It would have been interesting to know how it would have performed!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I guess the climbrate would have been insane!

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:06 PM
Double

Message Edited on 09/13/0305:09PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:08 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:

- I stated that the BF-109 was outdated by 1942. I
- heard this while watching discovery channel (I live
- in holland) and was quite amazed as anybody would
- be.


History Channel is not the best place to obtain realistic view in the details of WW2 fighter performance.

The comment that it was outdated by 1942 is especially funny, as the Bf 109G-2 introduced in mid-1942 was easily the best fighter at that time...


-
- There motivation was like this: the 109 was designed
- for the blitzkrieg, to protect the STUKA's.

Nope, the Bf 109 was designed to be an interceptor: to shoot down incoming bombers over friendly territory.

German pre-WW2 doctrine didn`t think about protecting bombers; they envisaged fast bomber types, that were as fast or faster than fighters, and didn`t required protection. This worked well in Spain, Poland, but as soon as faster fighters appeared, they become vulnerable.

Up to the BoB German bombers usually operated alone, w/o fighter escort.


- This
- tactic required small, light aircraft that could be
- in the air very fast and they didn't need to fly
- very far because, they would always be stationed
- near the frontline.

Yep, almost like a definition for interceptor type planes...



- You can clearly see it with the
- Ju-87. This is a hit and run aircraft, designed
- purely for scaring the hell out of the enemy and
- precision bombing.

It was a tactical light/dive bomber... probably the best in it`s own category.


- The He-111 was designed to harras
- enemy supply lines and relied on their speed and the
- long-range BF-110 for protection.

The He 111 was a medium bomber, suited best for tactical or operational range bombing. Harass... You mean, 2500 kg bombload for haressment? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-
- The Bf-109 was outdated by 1942 (maybe even 1941)
- because:
-
- 1. It was a light aircraft, wich coouldn't carry
- alot of armament.
-


That`s simply wrong. The basic armament was very good for all anti-fighter purposes, or medium bombers. For use agaisnt heavy bombers, gunpods could be added resulting three 20mm cannon... is that light armament? Later, 30mm MK 108 was added; the most powerful fighter gun of WW2... some 109s carried 3 of it, plus two heavy MGs.

Appearanty, since the 109 shot down most aircraft in WW2, it`s doubtful that their armament was inaduquate.



- 2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB
- but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts
- with its big distances)

True, it wasn`t long ranged, however it wasn`t extremely short ranged either. However you must remember that in BoB they did not yet introduce droptanks, and that opposing Spitfires (or early P-51s or P-47s for the matter) didn`t have any longer range either.

W/o droptank, range was 750 km and endurance 1.5 hours. With droptank, range increased to apprx. 1250 km, endurance to 2.5h. Very comparable to either to the Spitfire, and even superior to most russian fighter.

The point is, more range was never required; it was already enough for the EF or the home defense purposes. IF the designers wanted, they could have increased range up to 2300 km easily.. but the only extended range 109s were a few hundred of specialized photo recon planes with two 300 liter droptanks under each wing, for a range of about 1800 km.


- 3. It was cramped (any pilot who flew it will tell
- you, not a big issue either)

The Bf 109 was an inteceptor. Pilot was supposed to spend about 1-2 hour in cocpit, no more. So extra space was not required. On the other hand, "cramped" design allowed to pull more Gs in combat, reduced size of the airplane, with the benefit of less drag and a harder target to hit.

"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight."


-
- 4. Because of the light construction, not alot of
- protection could be added.
-

Wrong. Bf 109 series carried rather heavy armor for protecting their pilots and vitals, along with many safety devices... from the beginning of it`s carreer, self sealing tanks were standard.

Pilot was better protected than in 95% of other fighters, rear armor protected him well up to .50 caliber rounds. Other fighters can`t claim this...

Fuel tanks were armored... not in other fighters.

Most vulnerable areas of all liquid cooled fighters, the coolant was especially well protected : both coolant tanks and radiators were doubled, the loss of one didn`t mean loss of the plane. In case of radiator leak, coolant lines could be shut down, thus coolant was saved and plane could return base on remaining radiator capacity... radiators were armored, too. Not in other fighters...


-
- 5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings
- or, just taxing)
-

True, landing gear was a problem... but not only on 109. Some Western Allied a/c was worser in this regard, with a more narrow track, and weaker u/c construction.


- 6. The light construction meant that, new and
- heavier engines and armament where difficult to
- install and difficult to fly with. That's why the K4
- wasn't a real succes. they first tried putting 15mm
- guns on the cowling and a MK-103 in the nose....

MYTH, MYTH, MYTH.

1, The 109 gained only a modest amount of weight during it`s carreer. The 109E was about as heavy as the Spitfire I; by 1944, the final models, the K-4 and Spit XIV were lot heavier... expect that the K-4`s weight increased to 3362kg, the Spitire XIV`s to 3859kg... the K-4 was 500kg lighter by this time.

Going 109E-3 to K-4 increased weight from 2609kg to 3362kg. That`s 750 kg weight increase, or 28%. During that, the airframe was througly redesigned TWICE.

Going Spit I to XIV increased weight from 2724 kg to 3859 kg. That`s 1135 kg increase, or 41.6%.

Or you can compare it to the weight increase of the P-51 during it`s carreer...

Or, just a show of engine weight increase:

DB 601 and Merlin III both weighted around 610kg.

The 109G used DB605A. It weighted 720 kg. It`s counterpart, Spitfire MkIX, used Merlin 66. That weighted 749 kg...

Then the Griffon appeared in Spits... single stage versions weighted some 820kg, the two-stage Griffon 65 weighted 898 kg in the Spit XIV...

DB 605 DC in 109K-4 weighted still only 745 kg...

2, K-4 was never planned to carry 15mm cannons. It`s a myth based on wrong reading of a document. A special version of the MK 103 was planned, but was most likely not used in actual service.



Or just read what pilots who flew them tell:

Franz Stiegler:

"Franz also said he once flew a 4-engine flying boat. Franz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft. "

More here:

http://www.bf109.com/stigler.html





http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:17 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
-- I stated that the BF-109 was outdated by 1942. I
-- heard this while watching discovery channel (I live
-- in holland) and was quite amazed as anybody would
-- be.
-
-
- History Channel is not the best place to obtain
- realistic view in the details of WW2 fighter
- performance.
-
It was Discovery channel, not history channel, wich isn't available in Europe (at least, not my part of it) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyways, I do not agree with all of your points but, thanks for enlighting us a bit!!

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:11 PM
As Isegrim allready stated...

Neither Mk103 nor MG151 every tried to build in in the 109...

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Heard this "109 was outdated" very often, but the arguments are also fitting to other "succsesfull" planes.

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:41 PM
Platypus

The german TV station N24 also broadcasts documentations from "HistoryChannel" - 1:1 translations. These things are so awfully primitive and full of simplistic describtions (mostly US-centered - another problem) that naming them "documentation" is a contradiction in itself.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:38 PM
adlabs6 wrote:
- Those points fit in with other materials I've read
- on the 109. The 109 is more popular in this sim and
- the K4 above all others due to the nose cannon, and
- will remain so regardless of history. I can't
- imagine lots of 109 players switching to the 190
- series, even if they were superior machines.
-

You must not fly online very much......

Most players that I see in the past flying 109 are now flying 190s

I still fly bolth including all other ac so I know there weekness & for fun as well.....

The 109s are not bad but there not the plane they were in 1.1b wich I thought was a great FM for almost all ac....

The 109 is now more of a challange than ever wich in some wayes keeps the sim interesting....

I realy love it when I kill these UBER la7 flying a k4 or a g6as or g2 in turning fights LOL

DIE LA7 DIE !!!!!!!!!!!! (oops I lost it there)

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:53 PM
Abbuzze wrote:
- As Isegrim allready stated...
-
- Neither Mk103 nor MG151 every tried to build in in
- the 109...
-

You sure about the 103? What was the MK103M to be used in?


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:38 PM
Though Isegrim already explained very well, I will insist on some points, because usualy Bf-109 is a very poorly understand aircraft, especially with the huge bs against it in each and every western writting about it.



- The Bf-109 was outdated by 1942 (maybe even 1941)
- because:
-
- 1. It was a light aircraft, wich coouldn't carry
- alot of armament.

Isegrim said this already, armament was more than adequate at all times, and it was very well placed. After a period of trimming in early service, Mk108 became the weapon we know: 1 shot kill vs any fighter - essential characteristic if you BnZ (Bf-109 was not restricted to BnZ)

- 2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB
- but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts
- with its big distances)

Bf-109 was an air superiority fighter, not a polivalent fighter like Fw-190. There is no doubt that Bf-109 was a better doghfighter, fact proven conclusively by the aces, but also by the performance stats: it had better climb, turn, acceleration, max speed.

Air superiority fighters are always lighter than the rest, because they need much better power loading than other types. Power loading excludes from the start late war american planes like P-47 and P-51 from air superiority category.


- 3. It was cramped (any pilot who flew it will tell
- you, not a big issue either)

Best fighter pilots are short because they can withstand higher G forces. Also generally people at that time were significantly shorter than people nowadays


- 4. Because of the light construction, not alot of
- protection could be added.

Another myth, and unfortunately it is perpetuated by Il2 sim series. Bf-109 had more armor and more components protected by armor than any other allied fighter. Pilot was better protected than in any fighter. I read very often how confident were Bf-109 pilots that they could not be hit.


- 5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings
- or, just taxing)

This was indeed a defect, present on Spitfires too.


- 6. The light construction meant that, new and
- heavier engines and armament where difficult to
- install and difficult to fly with. That's why the K4
- wasn't a real succes. they first tried putting 15mm
- guns on the cowling and a MK-103 in the nose....


Light construction is essential on a air superiority fighter. Russian designs were also concieved to be light as Bf-109 but they were constraint to use a lot of wood, which rose the weight. Late war russian fighters had the same power to weight as Bf-109 (at sea level, over 3000m they are unimpressive) this is why they were so dangerous. This is why Spitfire, another design from interbelic period, remained very competitive.

Ability to absorb damage was small on of all fighters, regarless of construction, a good hit in the engine, no matter if radial or inline, meant the fighter had to exit the fight. What was really important was pilot protection, which was very good on Bf-109. Planes with stronger construction and better armor protected were better suited for ground work or bomber interception, this did not improve in any way their ability to engage other fighters.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:07 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-- 2. It couldn't fly very far (not a big issue in FB
-- but, it was in the BoB and on the eastern fronts
-- with its big distances)
-
- Bf-109 was an air superiority fighter, not a
- polivalent fighter like Fw-190. There is no doubt
- that Bf-109 was a better doghfighter, fact proven
- conclusively by the aces, but also by the
- performance stats: it had better climb, turn,
- acceleration, max speed.
-
- Air superiority fighters are always lighter than the
- rest, because they need much better power loading
- than other types. Power loading excludes from the
- start late war american planes like P-47 and P-51
- from air superiority category.
-

Yes but that lack of air time, unlike that of the P-51, contributated to the LW defeat in BoB.

Not necessarily Huck. If the a/c is already at altitude waiting for EAs it does not need a rapid RoC. The P-51 could loiter, waiting.

Huck, can you answer why the LW did not attack earlier forcing the escort fighter to drop their tanks? This would have forced them to turn back early, making easier pickings of the bombers.


-
-
-- 5. narrow gear (very tricky in cross-wind landings
-- or, just taxing)
-
- This was indeed a defect, present on Spitfires too.
-

True, the Spit's track was slightly smaller but one does not here of the notorious troubles on landing and TO for the Spit like one hears for that of the 109.



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:23 PM
I agree, Huck's answer, ridiculous bias aside, is way too simplistic.

Fighters are designed to do a certain job.

The Bf-109, as Isegrim had stated in another tread, was designed to be an interceptor used over friendly territory. Interceptors, by their nature, must climb quickly. Certainly a good power to weight ratio helps in this regard. But by its nature, it was limited in range and endurance. This shortcoming was painfully evident in the BoB.

The P-47 was designed to be a high altitude fighter. Once at its operating altitude, climb rate was very secondary to other necessary attributes, like maintaining rated power. The P-47 had this ability in spades.

You can easily see the advantages of this. Read "The JG26 War Diaries: Volume II." The book is replete with instances of P-47 sweeps over the Netherlands at altitudes of 30,000 feet. Germans in Fw-190s and Bf-109s could do little about these incurrsions until the P-47s swooped down and engaged. The P-47 almost always had the critical advantage of altitude.

All fighters had their advantages and disadvantages. The absurd term "air superiority fighter" means jack-$hit. The superior fighter is the one that could ITS job.

And, 60+ years later, its evident that the Germans would have been far more successful had they been flying planes like the P-47 and P-51. Conversely, the Allies would have been in miserable shape if they had to prosecute the war in German fighters of the day.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:32 PM
csThor wrote:
- Platypus
-
- The german TV station N24 also broadcasts
- documentations from "HistoryChannel" - 1:1
- translations. These things are so awfully
- primitive and full of simplistic describtions
- (mostly US-centered - another problem) that naming
- them "documentation" is a contradiction in itself.
-
It really was Discovery channel, not history channel and, I find them always quite right about things. Discovery channel isn't always about history. There is also nature documentaries, travelling, fishing, scientific and even an occasional 'fun' show. (like scrapheap challenge)

Nope, we haven't got history channel here and, by the posts I read on this forum, we ain't missing much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)