The Me 109....

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 11 Jan 2008 15:47

not worth the cost of a major redesign to move the landing struts further apart.
As far as I know, they were moved further out on the K model and possibly the late G models.

Tony

AL Schlageter
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 09 Oct 2007 18:59
Location: Gloucester

Post by AL Schlageter » 11 Jan 2008 16:03

Kurfürst wrote:Probably the different engine is not so much suited for the airframe than the one it was designed around - the Merlin turns the opposite way than the DB, for example.
How did the Jumo powered 109 compare?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Post by Jon G. » 11 Jan 2008 16:25

For the highs and lows of Bf 109 discussion, please refer to this thread:

USAF pilot comments on Me 109 and FW 190
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=97075

...please stick to the topic and avoid the personal remarks, lest this thread will suffer a fate similar to the old one.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Jan 2008 17:07

So, I suppose the 109's reputation as being difficult to land and taxi needs to be corrected then.Although, Mark Hanna's airtest of the G10 spoke of the need not to allow the aircraft to wander,
Jf, this is actually entirely complimentary to the softness/plushness of the undercarriage "action...which is only pertinent on landing LOL But in ALL other circumstances, that plushness and softness would mean the aircraft wouldn't be as...taut?..when taxiing as a aircraft with a short-travel heavily-damped suspension would be.

As for the "ground looping" issue, it's interesting to note this was improved by larger wheels ;) among other things. Anyone who has ever ridden a modern "trail bike" with long-travel softly-damped front forks and a relatively small 19" wheel will be acquanted with the phenomenon of "washing out" - when you turn the bike too sharply with too little forward speed and the whole plot pitches OVER the front end as if it has dug in and stopped moving! Full offroad bikes with a 21" front wheel have a pronounced lessening if this effect...even though they're usually moving slower than a tarmac-capable bike.

Why is this pertinent? In a narrow wheelbase earlier 109, once she began to loop the aircraft would be "washing out" i.e VERY quickly reach the point in flipping where gravity and aircraft's weight carries it on over the top of the ground loop because of the smaller wheels. With bigger wheels it would be that much harder to reach the non-recovery point in the loop where gravity and weight carry the plane on over.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23540
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 11 Jan 2008 18:27

AL Schlageter -- Please start giving sources for your claims. This is a mandatory and not an optional requirement in the research sections of the forum.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=5#5
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 676#990676
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Post by Ome_Joop » 12 Jan 2008 09:56

AL Schlageter wrote:Kurfurst, if you have a problem with what I posted please take it up with Willy Radinger, Walter Schick and the web master of this site, http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... _109E.html.
Your link doesn't seem to work...but from these you can get to the article.
http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_air_bf109.html

from the same site
http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_air_he111.html

Heinkel 111

P-0

The pre-production P-0, powered by two 1,150hp DB 601Aa engines, was produced late in 1938. They were the first of over 800 He 111Ps produced before production switched to the 111H. The P-0 retained the standard four bay internal bomb bay used in earlier models of the He 111.

P-1

Shortages of the DB 601Aa engine meant that the 68 P-1s were powered by the DB 601A-1, but the type was otherwise the same as the P-0.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 15:04
Location: Hungary

Post by Kurfürst » 12 Jan 2008 12:19

The site is not very reliable - it claims things like the 109E-3 entering production 'towards the end of 1939' (then how were in spain the the spring '39 etc..), having MG-FF/M cannons (that would be E-4), and the old 'engine mounted cannon' myth.

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

USAF pilot comments on Me 109

Post by Dave Bender » 12 Jan 2008 14:02

Col. Carson provides some useful information, but as with all evaluations of enemy aircraft I take it with a grain of salt. Col Carson was apparently a P-51 pilot. Like all successful fighter pilots, he knew how to use the strengths of his particular aircraft to best advantage. The best features of the P-51 were:
Speed
High speed handling (as one would expect of a fast aircraft).
Endurance.
Roomy cockpit (as one would expect of a high endurance aircraft)

Col Carson mentions that the Me-109 had a good rate of climb. However he does not mention just how good the Me-109 was when fighting vertical. P-51s did not fight that way (at least not the ones that survived to talk about it). Fighting vertical was SOP for the Me-109 and that is where the aircraft really shined. The engine mounted 3cm cannon was also an excellent weapon for killing heavy bombers, something the P-51 rarely had to do.

Some of Col Carsons observations are certainly correct.
Low endurance. (bailing out of a Me-109 when it ran out of fuel was not unknown)
Poor visibility (also a feature of early model P-47s and P-51s)
Poor high speed handling.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 15:04
Location: Hungary

Post by Kurfürst » 12 Jan 2008 17:52

Col Carson`s review is actually based on, and repeating some readily available RAF evaluation reports from 1940/41 that tested a captured Bf 109E-3, not his first-hand experience. I highly doubt he ever flew the type, perhaps never even seen it up close (apart from in air battles he participated, of course).

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Doubt he ever flew the type

Post by Dave Bender » 13 Jan 2008 13:58

An evaluation of an evaluation? If this is true then Col Carson's performance summary is not worth much.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 15:04
Location: Hungary

Post by Kurfürst » 13 Jan 2008 14:15

It isn`t worth much indeed, somone wrote an article in which he ridiculed Carson`s article pretty heavily.. but this subject was soo done to death. ;) It can be read here : http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

IMHO let`s drop the Carson subject otherwise we end up with 10 page thread about him.

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Post by Ome_Joop » 14 Jan 2008 21:10

What about differences in engines in the same aircraft/airframe?
Why is a DB601E better than a DB605 powered 109G-6 (is it?)?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... 14026.html

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Post by Ome_Joop » 14 Jan 2008 21:12

What about differences in engines in the same aircraft/airframe?
Why is a DB601E better than a DB605 powered 109G-6 (is it?)?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... 14026.html

BTW i read somewhere that in 1938 total production of DB601's was 1700 engines (so with production started in 1937 there would be enough engines to put into some of those airframes i guess!).
Anyone here have an engine production list ?
Last edited by Ome_Joop on 15 Jan 2008 17:17, edited 1 time in total.

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 21:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Why is a DB601E better

Post by Dave Bender » 15 Jan 2008 15:26

The evaluation is dated 1942. So we are talking about a late model DB 601 vs an early model DB 605. If you ran the same evaluation a year later I expect the DB 605 would take the prize. Otherwise it would have been pointless to supercede the DB 601 with the more powerful DB 605.

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Post by Ome_Joop » 15 Jan 2008 17:50

I think it had to do with this:

DB605A-1 were detuned in service by lowering of the supercharger boost to 1.3 ATA (1355 hp at sea level) by order of the RLM until 1943

http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”