Bf109 - a Dog or what?

[ozzy72]

This should be the right forum for this, as it's about the aircraft rather than any FS.

I'm not a pilot, and I know there are a limited amount of them on these forums. (Why simulate it when you can do it?..............lol). So all I really have to go by as far as the flying (piloting) experience goes, is Simming.

I'am told that the 1% models are pretty much as close as you can get to a true representation of what each plane is like to fly, with regard to it's power, handling, responsiveness in different areas and maneuvrability as can be experienced in these simulators.
Also I am assured that the CFS1 & 2 models come as close as can be expected within the restrictions of the whole package as it is.

That said, is it just me or is/was the Bf109 really such a dog of a plane to fly when compared to say, the Spitfire, P51, Hellcat for instance.
If the representations that I have experienced in the Sims from all sources, including 1% builders, are true representations, then there is no wonder the British were able to have such inordinate success during the BoB and the P51's later over Europe.

Do others agree that it is probably one of the worst/hardest planes to maneuvre or handle when compared to it's contemporariies ie. Spitfire, Hurricane, P51, P47, P38, (these would be the main ones).

Comments please..................

P.S. Just a quickie. Can someone explain the nature of a "self-sealing tank". Did they have a rubber coating around them or something?

[HawkerTempest5]

Hi brensec pal. Interesting topic. I have to disagree here to some extent. I love flying both the 109 and 190 and find them both great fighters. I agree that neither is as good at dogfighting as a Spitfire though.
With both the 109 and 190 the trick I find is to handle them carefully and not try to throw them around like a Spit or they will stall quickly. The 190 is a superb bomber interceptor!
As for self sealing tanks, I'm sure the tank is made from rubber.

[ozzy72]

A self-sealing tank, is basically a fuel tank made from a number of layers. If it is perforated (e.g. a bullet), then the sandwiched layers react to the fuel and go hard, sealing the hole.
As for the 109 its a bit of a dog! The 190 was better than the Spitfire when it first came out, but the British v.quickly sorted that out after getting one which a German fighter pilot accidently landed in Britain (I think at Gravesend)...

Ozzy

[Tequila Sunrise]

I agree with the 109 (having to be careful), if you take your time you can get pretty good results. But the FW190, I have trouble keeping it behind a P-38! Having said that it does a good job of anihliating B-17,24,25's and A-20's

[denishc]

 From what I've read the Bf 109 was built more for speed then maneuverability.  When first introduced the 109 was much faster than the bi-planes and fixed wheeled mono-planes then in service.  Diving in at high speed, the 109 would slash through an enemy formation, regain altitude, turn and reattack (Thus the saying, "Beware the Hun in the Sun").  The "F" version was perhaps the best at this and was well liked by its pilots.
 Later versions of the 109 became "heavy" and its fuselage's surface filled with drag inducing "bumps" to allow for larger caliber guns, more fuel, larger engines and wheels.  In the end it was like weilding a hand-fisted axe instead of the swift foil it was designed as.

 As for self sealing fuel tanks, the rubber doesn't get hard but swells, pinching the hole shut.

[Professor Brensec]

Thanks for the comments. All very interesting.

As for the self sealing tank, I figured rubber was involved. I know that petrol (gasoline) makes rubber swell, but it also eventually breaks down and dissolves. So I imagine these holes had to be repaired when they returned?

As for the Bf109, I think the nail was hit on the head. One comment sums up what I was trying to say but couldn't explain. You have to be so careful or it will stall, or flip, or both. This is no good in a dogfight.
I do recall reading about the desparate efforts to continue to make the 109 viable. One commentator described their later attempts at engine upsizing as "trying to shoe-horn a 1700 HP engine into an airframe originally designed for a 900 HP engine"

Also another quote: "The kinder historians describe the cockpit as 'a glove-like fit' - the more honest describe it as 'coffin-like' "
That's certainly the feeling I get, even in the Virtual Cockpit in a simulation.

They would have been much better off trying to bring the 190 into service more quickly in larger numbers.  ;D

[Smoke2much]

I have a theory about flight sims and the planes they represent.  No matter how good the simulator and how good the flight sim pilot it is at the end of the day a game.  For the young Lufftwaffe pilots flying the BF109 was their life, they had hours of flying and months of training before reaching a frontline unit.  Once at the frontline unit they would have flown practice flights and learnt from the veterans in the unit the best way of handling the planes they flew.

In addition to all this they had advantages that we simmers simply dont have.  They had more than just their eyes to tell them what was happening to the aircraft.  The feel of the 'plane (weight of stick etc.) would change.  They would get information from their inner ears telling them of rate of climb and descent.  

Finally the lives of the pilots absolutely depended on their ability to fly.  In a sim no matter how well reality has been suspended for you you are aware at some level that even if the spitfire behind you shoots you down you have lost nothing but a little pride.  If you were 19 years old and could smell the cordite and hear the lead I think you might find things differant.

Much as I love 'em flight sims are just computer games.  They are infinately more complex than pong but the pronciple is the same.  The represent reality through mathematics and whilst this is fun I don't believe thatit has much bearing on the actual reality of war in the air.  

I think that the allied planes are easier to fly in flight sims is because we won.  Most flight sims are made by US (allied) firms and they wish to ensure that history repeats itself.  What better way to prove that their model is acurate than making it the most aerobatic etc.  It will always be a circular argument.  

Will

[Professor Brensec]

I agree totally with your comments regarding the realities of the situation.
In fact, I can imagine what a person, who has no interest in these games, would think about our even discussing these things with the apparent seriousness that we do. They would think we were bonkers for thinking that this and reality in WWII could be compared in the same breath.
This is true, of course.

However, in terms of the opinions of the other Simmers about the credibility of the realism that is supposed to be a factor in these games, I think we can be excused for appearing to speak about that realism (or representation of it) in a serious manner.

I know that years of simming, even with the advantage of simulated joystick force feedback and rudder resistance and even G forces simulated in some advanced way in a mounted pod, I would still never feel what it was truely like to fly a plane. But I do believe that even the experience that I have now would give me a modicum more of a chance to fly and land a similar plane in a "dead pilot" situation. God forbid.

As for the realism of having your life on the line, and one mistake being your last, well.........only the men who experienced exactly that, could hope to know.  ;D

[Felix/FFDS]

The 109 (early versions) had the potential to outturn a Spitfire (early versions) the main problem the 109 had against that was the relatively fragile wings.

109E vs Spit 1/2 in the BoB was a relatively even match ..   Spits could turn, but the pilot had to maintain the proper speed... too fast into a turn and a 109 could keep with him...  109E could just put their nose down and dive (fuel injected engines) but the Spit 1/2 had to roll - other wise the carburetor would flood.

I note that *in general* pilots would try to avoid dogfights... note that as the war progressed, the trend was for heaver armed fighter/interceptors ..  teh 190 when it came out was more than a match for the SpitV... except, of course, turning, but turning is a defensive move.  Then came the  SpitIX - basically a V with a better engine... but it could be out-turned by a V.

In simulated combat (AcesHigh), I tend to fly the La5N ..

I use to be a turnfighter, but more and more I'm playing the E game, but the La5N has the speed to be an E fighter, while maintaining good maneouverability.  Against an F4U, I'll turnfight, against a Spit, I'll BnZ...

Of course, with my bad eyesight and even worse gunnery skills, I tend to get close - my kills tend to be at 300yds or less - at that range, even a Spit 1s 8 popguns are deadly....

Ultimately, in simulations (as in real life) many times it's the skill of the pilot - given reasonably equal airplanes - that will determine the success of one over the other.