G-Pete

The poll above is for the Warbird of the Month October 2010 – vote what you like to see next Month.

This month is the Me/Bf 109

This thread is designed around the Warbird of the Month.
This is a knowledge base and info exchange of that bird, especially little known facts. Little details which you find interesting and worth to publish. Also comparisons to model and full scale are invited.
Pictures!

If you don’t see in the poll “your” airplane – please pm me and can I change the poll for the next round. Ones a bird makes the Warbird of the Month it don’t show up in the following polls.


Some stuff on the 109E

* All the control surfaces including the flaps were metal frames with fabric covering.
* All of the 109’s had leading edge slats. The slats extended automatically in a high angle of attack – no other French or British airplane had that feature.
* The landing speed was low as 80mph.

Your turn….

jeffk464

Why does LA7 never make these polls?

G-Pete

You are the first - one exception for you - here we go the LA 7 made it....

Any info on the 109?

grimmy55

This month is the 65th anniversary of the strato fortress correct me if I,m wrong

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Another fact about the Bf109.

Almost all 109 pilots agreed, the best of the 109 lineup, even if underarmed, was the F model.

The Bf 109 was the most produced fighter aircraft in history by far (the IL-2 and Po-2 were NOT fighters) with over 35k built.

The top 5 Bf 109 pilots shot down more enemy aircraft than top 500 Allied Aces combined.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

I will be on top of this one G-Pete. I voted for the Mig 3 of course cause I got one......

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

Evel, I give the German pilots credit but they were in a target rich environment, flying against over matched opponents in obsolete aircraft and or bombers. By the time the Americans got into the swing of things, the odds were better that they would probably not get into a fight. Just playin the devils advocae.

rctom

I often see the 109 called a ME-109 and sometimes BF-109.

Is there really a ME-109? What's the difference, can someone describe the details of the naming structure?

TF

Oberfeldwebel

Ram-bro
Another fact is that the German pilots had to keep flying. Not much in the way of rotating back to the states to train new fliers. The Luftwaffe needed all the experienced pilots they could muster.

rctom
No difference, BF stood for Bayerische Fluzeugwerke (bavaria aircraft factory) Me stood for Messerschmitt (designer of the a/c)

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

forgot about that fact

dvs1

Evil, You forgot to add that Erich Hartmann the highest scoring ace of all time with claimed kills of 352 would only fly the 109.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Well technically, the top three German aces only flew 109's for a vast majority of the recorded kills.

Barkhorn and Rall both got over 90% of their recorded kills in 109, with Barkhorn moving to a 190D9 and then an Me 262, and Rall flew his 109G-5 till the end when he was shot down by the 56th Fighter Group.


And if we wanna play devils advocate a bit more, "Pips" Priller shot down 68 SPITFIRES alone, and George Eder shot down 36 American 4 engine bombers. Both flew Bf 109s (well Priller till 1942)

G-Pete

Tom, it is still disputed which is the correct name Bf or Me 109.

My conclusion is, both are correct.

Emil “Willy” Messerschmitt was hired 1927 by BFW (Bayrische Flugzeugwerke) as chief designer and engineer. At BFW Messerschmitt developed the 109.
That design called Bf 109.
1938 BFW was dissolved by the Nazis and renamed Messerschmitt AG, Messerschmitt was a chairman and managing director.
Parts and complete airplanes were named Bf and Me 109+, a little confusion here. Some of the molds – like the landing gear shoulder could not be changed to Me.

Like I mentioned above, I assume both prefixes are correct.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

GPete is right, BOTH are correct. In fact there are actually RLM letters, documents and even Bf 109 MANUALS that contain both the words Bf 109 and Me 109. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH at times.

Both are correct.

IL2windhawk

Good choice for the first plane, Pete!

Wow - that's a great statistic.
Sure, it needs to be taken in context of their opponents, but it's still an impressive figure. Lets not forget the caliber of opponents that the Allies were flying against by the end of the war. The Luftwaffe was a shadow of it's former self, so alot of Allied kills were acheived just like when the Luftwaffe was terrorizing the eastern front.

Most folks know this.. but it bears mentioning in this thread:
The me-109 was notoriously difficult in ground handling. The gear was mounted to the fuselage to simplify wing construction and save weight, resulting in a narrow gear stance. I've seen alot of figures about how many aircraft were lost in landing / take-off accidents, between 10% - 25%. Maybe someone can provide a robust figure.

By the way: RC me-109's are squirrely too!
I have never seen anybody make a 109 with thru-the-fuse 2-peice wing, but it would be neat because you could stand the fuselage on the retracts, just like a real 109.

ARUP

The Bf109 had highest 'kill' ratio, too! 7-1 or some such. There was even an experimental version fitted with a 'V'-tail! Was any airplane (of the era) more modified and developed than the 109? I will vote the Ki-100. What a pretty and awesome airplane!

IL2windhawk

not sure... but I think the P-47 had a slightly better kill ratio in WW2. That may include Pacific kills too, though.

G-Pete

The down side on accurate book keeping (German notorious thang) is, later the mistakes and mishaps are also on record. I saw some numbers of different squadrons where the 109's had up to 20% damage birds on takeoff and lading accidents. Now you have to look at the next page, when the birds came back from maintenance and repair. This two charts can give you some hinds which ones where totaled.

It was less the design of the airplane - it was the inexperienced pilots which created these high accident numbers.

When the first G models came - very heavy - these pilots were just targets in the air....

G-Pete

Just a side note on kill ratios and achieved combat kills. The Luftwaffe had one standard on claimed kills. It has to be confirmed by witness or discovery on the ground. No half kills or quarter kills. A "I don't know" is a zero.

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

And the kill itself really didn't matter. Awards and promotions were based on a point scale. Enemy combat aircraft (fighters etc) were worth one point. Bombers could be multiple points, including just getting hte bomber to release its load off target.

IL2windhawk

Here's something interesting about the Me-109...

A few years ago, I met someone that was working on tooling to fabricate a Bf-109G aft fuselage section (everything behind the cockpit). He explained to me that this part of the fuselage is made up of a series of cylindrical sections of tapering size. Aside from a few stringers that hold the cylinders together at the joints, and some small stringers, it's hollow down the middle. It has minimal-to-nil internal structure, and the skin is the primary support structure for the entire tailplane. You can see the joints in this image to get an idea of what I mean. I suppose there are probably lots of other aircraft built this way (monocoque), but I found this to be interesting when I learned about it, and I'm sure it was a cutting-edge design when the 109 was on the drawing table.

glazier808

My Feedback: (1)

heres alittle something I've ran across doing some research for a current build.

As I understand it was a "field designation" given by Galland.

Me 109F-6U

I plan on doing this for my build. Should be easy with a few mods. He supposedly added two additaional MG17's(same as in the cowl)in the wing. He later changed the ones in the wing over to 20mm MG FF/M, and I have not been able to tell for sure but also changed the cowl guns over too as seen in the one starboard picture(below post)
, and mentioned in the text.

Casey

glazier808

My Feedback: (1)

scans are too large so I must do them one at a time sorry....

Casey

Jeff Foley

My Feedback: (45)

It depends on the model and the conditions as far as the ground handling....which I'm sure conditions affected the full size as well. My Emil is 86" span and if always flown off grass and into the wind, it is very docile. On pavement in a crosswind however, you definately have your hands full. Good crosswind technique is a must...wing low opposite rudder.

One interesting item most people don't know about the 109...at least the Emil. When the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped 7 degrees. This, coupled with the leading edge slats provided extra camber to lower landing speed quite a bit. I'm not sure if the models prior to the E had this feature or not, but that was a very advanced feature for the mid to late 30's!

glazier808

My Feedback: (1)

some more