USAF pilot comments on Me 109 and FW 190

[Ome_Joop]

oops my mistake

[Jon G.]

After some deliberation I've removed two posts from this thread. While only one post was off-topic they were both insulting, so they both went.

Stay on topic gentlemen, and avoid insulting one another.

Thank you.

[Purple fang]

Well Jons has tossed in yet another irrelevant post. Big wing in Bob, hmm, exactly what does that have to do with 109 development , aerodynamics & Carson? It is painfully obvious your bias against the 109 precludes any possibility of having an intelligent informative discussion about with yourself about it.

It's either an insult *yawn* or an unrelated comment. Both a waste of board space.

Speaking of big wings, Rall said he didn't like slats & would have preferred a bigger wing for 109. Steinhoff said G-6 had to be flown at high speed at atltitude cause it didn't perform so well up high. G-10 & K-4 had adds to address these issues. Flettners, tall tail & redesigned horizontal tailplane.

So like all WW 2 planes it wasn't perfect. Mustang had technical bugs throughout it's career. 38 was a sure kill according to Bar & Bueligen. Then it got hydraulics & dive problems solved & became a very good machine in the J & L models. But neither Mustang or 38 had long legs like 109 or faced as many different opponents , "albeit successfully" as the 109 did.

[Jon G.]

Well Jons has tossed in yet another irrelevant post. Big wing in Bob, hmm, exactly what does that have to do with 109 development , aerodynamics & Carson? It is painfully obvious your bias against the 109 precludes any possibility of having an intelligent informative discussion about with yourself about it...

I think he meant that Douglas Bader was wrong about the Big Wing tactics which the RAF tried out during the Battle of Britain. By extension, Bader could have been wrong about other things too - such as the Bf109.

I and my moderator colleagues will deal with insults and off-topic posts. Yours and other posters' input on that is always welcome, but keep such matters to the PM system.

[JonS]

neither Mustang or 38 had long legs like 109

Please give your definition of 'long legs'.

[neither the P-51 nor the P-38] faced as many different opponents , "albeit successfully" as the 109 did.

Please show how you came to this conclusion. Also, define 'opponents' please.

[Roberto120]

Many thanks for that link you contributed on Page One of this subtopic titled "Messerschmitt 109 - Myths, Facts, And The View From The Cockpit", Juha. The case has always been to despise and underrate German fighter aircrafts for propaganda purposes because they are the enemy. However your link clarified all this.

Roberto120

Nonsense. Did you read Carson's points on the FW 190 at all? It is clear that he very much liked her, probably for the reason that my fellow moderator Jon G. points out.

Regards

Andreas

Yes I did. But it is still propaganda regardless of how you put it. Carson's praise for the FW-190 is a scheme to hide this propaganda fact, a kind of sweet talk. But I don't think Carson is a diehard FW-190 fan. He is only using it to hide the propaganda work. The Bf-109 is a veteran fighter aircraft. It was the first modern fighter and was the earliest to be conceived and manufactured than any fighter aircraft in history. The design held the world's fastest speed record in 1937 and this record was unbroken for 30 years. Because of this fighter's formidable reputation and the topic is about enemy fighter aircraft the disfavor and despise intuitively will fall more on the Bf-109. I will suggest that you read Juha's http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths so you won't be incredibly biased, okay?

Roberto120

You have a problem with facts. The speed record was held by a completely different plane (except for the engine) which the Nazis designated similarly for propaganda reasons, and the Hurricane was designed at the same time as the Me 109.

As for your reasons why Carson likes the FW 190, they seem simply paranoid to me. Carson disliked the Me 109, he liked the FW 190, very much. Sometimes a banana is just - a banana. .I read Juha's link, it says nothing about the FW 190, and nowhere is there any indication that Carson made up his praise of the FW 190 to better diss the 109. That's ludicrous.

All the best

Andreas

Sometimes a banana is just - a banana? Andreas you are just spraying words. You and Carson have reduced the 109 into a mere kite. That is preposterous. The Bf-109 which held the world's fastest speed record might have been a different plane but not entirely different. As to your comment on Carson liking the FW-190 and that my statement about it is paranoid? You know as well as I that no person (including yourself especially) would ever like anything that is the enemy's deep in his heart. And we are not talking about the FW-190 yet. My contention that Carson's work is propaganda remains as it is - a propaganda. Just like any other work that inferiorizes the 109.

Roberto120

[JonS]

any... work that inferiorizes the 109 [is propaganda].

lol. Dude, I think you are in the process of jumping the shark.

[Roberto120]

Me, paraphrasing Carson

It's also important to note his preliminary caveat, in which he clearly states that

...Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots...

You forgot skillful or experienced pilots flying different fighter aircrafts with different characteristics. The same skillful pilot flying two different machines and if one of them was a better all-around fighter such as a the 109 he will come out the winner.

Carson's point (not mine), which you appear to have missed, is that the pilot who sees his enemy first has the advantage irrespective of the abilities of his aircraft.

Instead you contrive a highly theoretical situation in which the superior airplane will beat the inferior airplane, provided the planes were piloted by the same man. That's pure nonsense, and obviously impossible to verify.

Carson picked up erroneous data from a badly degraded 109. And he never flew a 109 or an FW-190. As for his work about the 190 he also picked this up from Allied pilots who encountered the aircraft. I would suggest that you read http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths in order to clarify your mind from Carson's erroneous work.

There is no denying that Carson's report is subjective, but then show me an aircraft evaulation which isn't. His praise for the FW190 seems sincere enough to me. If he flew neither plane, he certainly did manage to be even-handed in his critique.

I read the extensive link provided by Juha. It's highly interesting reading, certainly far more extensive analysis than the fairly short review by Carson. The Finnish Bf109 site is no catalogue of universal praise, either. It's unsurprising that men who scored most or all of their air victories in Bf109s reflect favourably on the plane also many years later, yet there are echoes of the same weak spots in the Bf109 as Carson emulates: heavy controls at high speeds, tricky landing characteristics and cramped cockpit.

The most unreserved praise for the Bf109 from the Finnish site is the quotes by a USMC major who flew a Bf109D in 1938, obviously not under combat conditions. It should tell you something that the USMC major's point of reference was radial-powered biplanes, whereas Carson's basis of reference clearly is the Mustang. That, too, should tell you something.

This entry of yours is a typical denial of the facts that are contained in works like the one Juha posted in here. The one who saw the enemy first comes out as the winner is true in some cases but not always. One test pilot or just a regular pilot flying different aircrafts one at a time from both the Allies and the Axis has been performed countless times. To say that this is not so is pure absurdity. However the results of his experiences with the aircrafts will depend on his biasness or in this case, Carson.

Juha's entry about the Bf-109 is the fairest that I've read. I do not deny that the 109 had heavy stick and pedal controls at high speeds but this is also experienced in a Spitfire and other Allied fighter aircrafts. "Tricky" landing characteristics were not experienced in Juha's entry. "Cramped cockpits" are also true in the Spitfire and some Allied fighters. If the holy grail is the Mustang, this fighter is just as comparable to the Bf-109. Like I stated before, Allied and some Axis fighter aircrafts were copies of the Bf-109 and the FW-190.

The comments made by USMC Major Al Williams about the 109 is true and positive. A pilot with a lot of flying time on single-seat fighter aircrafts will know the differences in the flight characteristics of various aircraft.

Roberto120

[Roberto120]

Thanks Roberto, good stuff. & 109 didn't have a big wing.

The RAF had as this Big Wing he means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Wing

Wikipedia gets better

Many thanks to that link, Ome. I would've misinterpreted it without your contribution.

Roberto120

[Huck]

There is no denying that Carson's report is subjective, but then show me an aircraft evaulation which isn't. His praise for the FW190 seems sincere enough to me. If he flew neither plane, he certainly did manage to be even-handed in his critique.

The Russian tests on 109 are almost spot on with Rechlin tests, despite using captured material. So objective testing can be done. This puts Allied tests in a very bad light. But then again, some Allied tests are simply ludicrous: the comparison between Fw-190 and P-47 was done using a bush pilot and a cargo pilot, both of them totaling precisely zero hours of experience on single engine fighters. The bush pilot got plane sick while testing Fw-190 performance. Gaahhhh, could they make it more ridiculous? The RAE test on 109E from which Carson borrows heavily was a propagandistic work. The context of this report is nicely revealed in Green's "Augsburg Eagle", read there how RAE reached these "conclusions".

I read the extensive link provided by Juha. It's highly interesting reading, certainly far more extensive analysis than the fairly short review by Carson. The Finnish Bf109 site is no catalogue of universal praise, either. It's unsurprising that men who scored most or all of their air victories in Bf109s reflect favourably on the plane also many years later, yet there are echoes of the same weak spots in the Bf109 as Carson emulates: heavy controls at high speeds, tricky landing characteristics and cramped cockpit.

There will always be pilots that like or dislike certain characteristics of their planes. Unfortunately likes and dislikes are not valid proofs for a plane's qualities or defects, and this is true for 109 also. Only characteristics that lead to qualities or defects that can be somehow quantified are proofs. Let's take the last three that you mentioned:

* heavy controls at high speed: yes, all ww2 planes had heavy controls at high speeds, some more than others - this is because the controls were not boosted; Me 109 was redesigned in 1940-41 in order to improve the controlability at high speed, stick forces remained high, but significantly smaller than of competing planes, in fact the danger of destroying the plane by pulling to many Gs because of too light controls became so present that in 1944 the 109's elevator travel was reduced to prevent that to some degree. So that the 109 controls were considered to light at high speed is a fact.

* tricky landing, let's see how this verifies in practice:

A good way to compare is on JG54 records. JG54 operated both planes on both Eastern and Western Front. Numbers look like this:

Plane/Group/time interval/aprox total number of planes that were flown by the unit during the period/lost in accidents/percentage of lost in accidents/lost in combat/percentage of lost in combat

Fw 190: I./JG54 / 7.43-6.44 / 208 in total / 91 lost in accidents / 44% lost in accidents / 73 lost due to enemy action / 35% lost due to enemy action
Fw 190: II./JG54 / 1.43-8.43/ 113 in total / 30 lost in accidents / 27% lost in accidents / 22 lost due to enemy action / 19% lost due to enemy action
Me 109: II./JG54 / 1.43-8.43/ 93 in total / 16 lost in accidents / 17% lost in accidents / 38 lost due to enemy action / 40% lost due to enemy action
Me 109: III./JG54 / 6.43-5.44 / 176 in total / 51 lost in accidents / 29% lost in accidents / 78 lost due to enemy action / 44% lost due to enemy action

Note that II./JG54 operated both planes alongside between 1.43-8.43.
Numbers show that percentually Me 109 had lower losses in accidents, while Fw 190 had slightly lower in combat. There is nothing to show that Me 109 was less safe to operate than Fw 190, quite the contrary seems to be true.

* cramped cockpit 109 cockpit was designed to comply to RLM requirements, which were computed from biometric data on Luftwaffe fighter pilots. Of course, there is no size that fits all, but in general, those dimensions were adequate for wartime European pilots, and not so for wartime American pilots (I already discussed about this earlier in this thread).

The most unreserved praise for the Bf109 from the Finnish site is the quotes by a USMC major who flew a Bf109D in 1938, obviously not under combat conditions. It should tell you something that the USMC major's point of reference was radial-powered biplanes, whereas Carson's basis of reference clearly is the Mustang. That, too, should tell you something.

Comparing Me 109 with Mustang is not fair for either one, they are not in the same class. Mustang will look bad when performance is measured, Me 109 will look bad when range is measured. Both planes should be compared with planes in the same class, lfor instance Me 109 with Spitfire and Fw 190 with Mustang.

[Roberto120]

any... work that inferiorizes the 109 [is propaganda].

lol. Dude, I think you are in the process of jumping the shark.

I don't know what you mean.

Roberto120

[Huck]

Let's look a little bit at the visibility problem, comparing Erla Haube with bubble canopies.
The main advantage of Erla Haube is that pilot could check the the six o' clock high - this is the place where the attacker is when maneuvering. Regular bubble canopies, that did not include an armored glass headrest, which means all but Russian ones, could not check that spot without the help of a wingman (or without desperately using the rudder and bleeding lots of speed in the process).

[Huck]

And three P-47 cockpits.

pictures are from this site:

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/

[Huck]

Note that during wartime pilots used wide armored headrests, with contour for shoulders, not what you see today in airshows (if they aren't removed completely), like in this picture:



picture from this page:

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/401 ... alk414.htm

[Purple fang]

Jons, long legs means how long it fought. 109 from spain to 45. even a bit in Israel after that.P-38 from 43 to 45, Mustang 1st combat mission Feb 44 to mid 45. And a bit of work in Korea.

Define opponents? Alrighty then, that would be e/a one encounters in air combat. In this thread we are talking specifically fighters.

109 was competitive against P-38, Mustang, P-47, Spitfire, Yak-9 & 3. Also Lagg 5 & 7. Hurricane & P-40 & P-39 to boot.& what ever the was flying in Spain, Ratas & such. I'm sure I missed a few, Dewoteine, Morane 406, Curtis 75 & Typhoon a few more. How did I arrive at this conclusion. Stats & figures I suppose.

Mustang met 109, 190 & a some 262's. & A few Macchis. In the Pacific the leftovers that Corsairs & Hellcats hadn't mostly already chewed up. My neighbor flew 51 missions in pacific in P-38, never saw one enemy plane.