P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Depends on the varients. The 109E was known to fly very well at high speeds.

[plan_D]

It still wasn't a nice aircraft to fly, I read somewhere over 1,500 Bf-109E and F were lost in a few months during 1941-'42 due purely to accidents. The difficulty to fly increased in the G and even more so in the K. That's why I think the F was the best.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

most of these accidents would be on take off and landing i'm assuming??

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

most of these accidents would be on take off and landing i'm assuming??

Landing! - narrow landing gear, high horse power, poor visibility, add a good crosswind and its an accident waiting to happen, even for a seasoned pilot!

[plan_D]

I don't know, possibly. I have read the section again and it wasn't in a few months, it was E and Fs from 1940-1942.

The major problems being;

There was no rudder trimmer, at high speed constant pressure had to be kept on the rudder pedal to keep it straight.

The flight controls tightened up above 300 mph, pilots had to hold their arms out in front and could not get good leverage except for fore and aft movement.

In tight manoeuvres, the slats snatched open which caused sudden yaw, this made aiming almost impossible. Handling the plane in these situations was also extremely tiring.

This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38.

When the Gustav was introduced the flight controls were arranged poorly. The higher torque engine produced a larger swing on take off and landing, which was already bad enough with the narrow landing gear.

The only make up for increase of weight was an extra 275 hp in the DB 605A (1475 hp) and GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost. No new larger wing was installed. So, the problems had either remained or were made worse.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

This is why the Bf-109E and F required an expert pilot to fly it at it's ability. Comparable in that aspect to the P-38.

The -38 was a handful on one engine (especially on take off) and of course during a dive. Other than that I'm told she was actually easy to fly.

[plan_D]

It required a very good pilot to make it fly to it's full ability though. It was good in the hands of a novice pilot, but only good. It was excellent in the hands of people like Bong.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

It required a very good pilot to make it fly to it's full ability though. It was good in the hands of a novice pilot, but only good. It was excellent in the hands of people like Bong.

YEPPERS!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The Bf-109 was only the master-piece of engineering it was in the hands of an expert.

No, just with a properly trained pilot.

The Bf-109 still to this day does not get recognition as a great turning fighter and there is a reason for that.

Your very wrong here Plan_D, as the 109 has actually been called an excellent T&B fighter by virtually all modern pilots who has flown the few remaining examples to this date. (I've seen 'none' who describe it as sluggish in any way)

An American pilot even said he could easely take on two or three P-51 Mustangs in his 109.

So the few modern day results with the Bf-109 actually presents it as a formidable dogfighter.

The reason is most Bf-109s didn't turn well because their pilots weren't fully capable with the Bf-109 because the 109 was, quite frankly, a twat to fly.

This 'hardness' to fly myth has been highly exaggerated by british test reports on the 109E and 109G with gun-pods, in reality it wasnt a problem at all as described by German and Finnish pilots who flew it.

Remember Plan_D, there's a reason why the 109 gave birth to such a record braking number of aces, from both Germany and Finland ! It was simply an excellent fighter.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.

You do know that the Spit had a narrower track than the 109?

What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.

Exactly correct!

[wmaxt]

Soren,

I seem to remember the Finns did well with the Buffalo too!?

Everybody,

As I understand it the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft but I too have heard that it was more difficult than average to fly well and the controls tightened up more than average at high speeds. Passing this off as British dislike or propaganda just doesn't cut it.

As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.

wmaxt

EXCELLENT POINT!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Soren,

I seem to remember the Finns did well with the Buffalo too!?

Absolutely, they were great pilots ! But most of the Finnish veterans happily admit they liked the 109 better, and that they had more succes in that fighter.

Everybody,

As I understand it the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft but I too have heard that it was more difficult than average to fly well and the controls tightened up more than average at high speeds. Passing this off as British dislike or propaganda just doesn't cut it.

I agree it has very little to do with British dislike, but the main variant they tested was the old 109E which admittedly had heavy controls at high speed. The later 109's had very good high speed control, and the controls became stiff not until speeds of over 700km/h ! Infact the the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of up to 85kg !! (Much more than the Spit's stick design)

The British also tested a 109G-6, but with gun-pods which increased stick forces.

As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.

Mostly it was as honest as possible, yes.

But remember the British practically didn't test their captured 109's at all, as they would stop any maneuver as soon as the slats popped out, which they did almost immediately in any hard maneuvering.