People who have flown the 1O9 and the P51

After looking at these two videos, I have resolved to get better acquainted with the 109 and 190. These pilots are saying exactly what I see Yo Yo saying a lot of the time.

Watch both vids all the way through. It's very cool what these guys say. I'm going to go get good at these planes and kick some P51 a$$.

[ame]

[ame]

Thx for sharing - I already knew the 2nd video... but it's great to watch both!

@OP It's the same person. And the "109" they call it "G" but it is realy a Buchon Spanish version with a Merlin engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_HA-1112

----------------------

Here is an interview with Gunther Rall 275 kills Luftwaffe Ace

He flew Bf109s from E to late G and additionally flew Fw190, Me262, P51, P38, Spitfire and P47 during his time as a flight instructor.

[ame]

and here he speaks about the 109 a little bit more:

https://youtu.be/Ry9sOqkSrvQ?t=16m30s

@OP It's the same person. And the "109" they call it "G" but it is realy a Buchon Spanish version with a Merlin engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_HA-1112

----------------------

Here is an interview with Gunther Rall 275 kills Luftwaffe Ace

He flew Bf109s from E to late G and additionally flew Fw190, Me262, P51, P38, Spitfire and P47 during his time as a flight instructor.

 

 

and here he speaks about the 109 a little bit more:

https://youtu.be/Ry9sOqkSrvQ?t=16m30s

The Buchon is based on the G-version airframe (IIRC, the G-2).

The Buchon is based on the G-version airframe (IIRC, the G-2).

There were many differences though. Mainly the engine and engine cowling and prop and cannons were mounted inside wings. That made the bushon nose heavy while normal 109 was nose light. Read Mark Hanna report on flying the bushon.

There were many differences though. Mainly the engine and engine cowling and prop and cannons were mounted inside wings. That made the bushon nose heavy while normal 109 was nose light. Read Mark Hanna report on flying the bushon.

This is how many misconceptions come about, comparing apples with pears!

Thanks for posting Solty.

Happy landings,

Talisman

- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot:

My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.

On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."

- Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., American P-51 ace, 357th Fighter Group, 8 1/2 victories:

Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."

There were many differences though. Mainly the engine and engine cowling and prop and cannons were mounted inside wings. That made the bushon nose heavy while normal 109 was nose light. /QUOTE]

 

The 109 G had all it's weapons in the nose and it's nose light compared to a plane that has weapons in the wings ?

The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."

Unfortunately Curtiss is wrong. The wings of the b,c,d,k, were the same thickness

Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."

Interesting, I wonder what kinds of Me-109/Fw-190 he was talking about and why that was.

Unfortunately Curtiss is wrong. The wings of the b,c,d,k, were the same thickness

Could it be that the wings shape was not the same and so he was talking about a "thickness" about a special point of the wings which was the point for his statement or were all wings exactly like the other ones? No changes?

Could it be that the wings shape was not the same and so he was talking about a "thickness" about a special point of the wings which was the point for his statement or were all wings exactly like the other ones? No changes?

The P-51D features a thicker and larger root section, so curtiss was/is right.

Unfortunately Curtiss is wrong. The wings of the b,c,d,k, were the same thickness

Same aerofoil : the shape of a wing. Not same wing:

The P51D model Mustang had a redesigned wing; alterations to the undercarriage up-locks and inner-door retracting mechanisms meant that there was an additional fillet added forward of each of the wheel bays, increasing the wing area and creating a distinctive "kink" at the wing root's leading edges. Most significant was a deepening of the wing to the allow the guns to be mounted upright, resulting in a slightly reduced maximum speed compared to P-51B/C variants.

There were many differences though. Mainly the engine and engine cowling and prop and cannons were mounted inside wings. That made the bushon nose heavy while normal 109 was nose light. Read Mark Hanna report on flying the bushon.

The Buchon is no more nose heavy than the G series, so this is false.

Furthermore the Buchon was heavier than most 109 variants.

According to Dave Southwood who has flown both versions they behave exactly the same, the Daimler Benz engined variant is just considerably less noise due to the exhausts being below cockpit height.

Rall's comments on the slats are abit funny, he is wrong here but there were indeed mixed feelings about these, esp. by pilots who never came to understand how they worked. (British test pilots feared the same: i.e. that they stalled the wing, when infact the opposite was true) But reading about him and his usual tactics he pretty much never engaged in turning fights, almost exclusively did fast suprise diving attacks. Apparently he had a near death experience in an Emil early in the war as one slat jammed (a common problem with the Emil), sending it into a spin - so that would explain his position, he likely never trusted those devices again.

The opinion of pilots who have flown the Bf-109, Spitfire & P-51:

Skip Holm

"Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily.

Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy. I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance. The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming."

Mark Hanna

[ame]http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf[/ame]

Dave Southwood

"In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft. A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!

The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit."

So, from the doc you have attached, Mark Hannah said:

"Above 550kph the peculiarity is slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means(...)above 500kph, the plane has a slight tucking sensation, a sort of desire to get to the ground level."

And here we have the G2 forces that the pilot has to use on the stick, which clearly shows that the pilot has to push on the stick as the speed rises to maintain level flight:

Again, Bushon wants to go down. Bf109G2 wants to go up.

Rall's comments on the slats are abit funny, he is wrong here but there were indeed mixed feelings about these, esp. by pilots who never came to understand how they worked. (British test pilots feared the same: i.e. that they stalled the wing, when infact the opposite was true) But reading about him and his usual tactics he pretty much never engaged in turning fights, almost exclusively did fast suprise diving attacks. Apparently he had a near death experience in an Emil early in the war as one slat jammed (a common problem with the Emil), sending it into a spin - so that would explain his position, he likely never trusted those devices again.

This is quite insulting, are you realy claiming that an ace who flew Bf109 serries through 621 combat missions and had 275 kills that he doesn't know his airplane?

Why people have no respect to the 3rd highest scoring ace of WW2?:huh:

How is Skip Holm who flew it from time to time and talks about "nuclear mike-mikes" more qualified to say how to fly the 109? Skip Holm never actually flew a 109! He flew the Bushon, with the Merlin engine! Rall flew real 109's during real combat, pushing them to the limit.

So, from the doc you have attached, Mark Hannah said:

"Above 550kph the peculiarity is slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means(...)above 500kph, the plane has a slight tucking sensation, a sort of desire to get to the ground level."

And here we have the G2 forces that the pilot has to use on the stick, which clearly shows that the pilot has to push on the stick as the speed rises to maintain level flight:

 

 

 

Again, Bushon wants to go down. Bf109G2 wants to go up.

You do realize this has nothing to do with the Buchon being more nose heavy, right?

PS: For good turn performance you don't want to be nose heavy ;)

You do realize this has nothing to do with the Buchon being more nose heavy, right?

 

PS: For good turn performance you don't want to be nose heavy ;)

Well, no. It is written, the Buchon wants to go down at higher speeds, Bf109 wants to go nose up. What is not obvious?

Responding to PS: I have never stated as such, although I can tell you that you are more stable if you don't have a plane pulling with you. 109 is very much pulling with you, therefore needs more attention not to overpull which could cause a stall.

Again, you are not looking at it from the pilot's perspective.

For example. If you take a modern P-51D with no fuel tank, you will get a plane that has stiff controls(at higher speeds), while a P-51D from the WW2 has CoG pushed to the back which makes it less stable during turns at lower speeds, but also loosens the force the pilot has to put into a stick-pull, which leads to a tighter turn at high speed, but also to a worse controllability at low speeds.

Advantage and disadvantage. It is the best when you can retain full elevator deflection ability but without the stick beeing too sensitive.

It really shouldn't be hard to be good in the 109 since it climbs faster than it should and never runs out of coolant. lol It's only going to get more difficult if they ever get around to correcting it and get it out of beta.

This is quite insulting, are you realy claiming that an ace who flew Bf109 serries through 621 combat missions and had 275 kills that he doesn't know his airplane.

 

Why people have no respect to the 3rd highest scoring ace of WW2?:huh:

*sigh*

Has nothing to do with respect or lack of it, has to do with his own well described flying style as well has his own written history. His flying style was never to get into dogfights, he was an expert at tactical positioning, mastering the bounce. Most of his victims never saw him coming.

Rall's comments on the slats are obviously based on his near death experience with them whilst flying the Emil, because they litterally work the opposite of how he describes it, unless one jams that is. Slats don't make a wing stall, they prevent it, period. Hence why pilots who prefered dogfighting do not agree with him on the slats, and this includes very high scoring aces such Erwin Leykauf & Walter Wolfrum. As Leykauf explains:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. "

Or Finnish Ace Kyösti Karhila (32 victories):

"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?

They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.

- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?

No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "

The final word is ofcourse from those who fly it today, as there's definitely no possibility of faulty memory then, and they all confirm what most LW & Finnish wartime pilots tell you about the slats, they were a great help in turns.

Just because a German pilot out turned a spitfire doesn't mean it has a better turn radius. It could have been inexperienced pilots or those that didn't want to take it to the limit. IIRC the elliptical wing on the spit gave that plane a better turn radius than the 109. What the pilots do with that is a different story.

Just because a German pilot out turned a spitfire doesn't mean it has a better turn radius. It could have been inexperienced pilots or those that didn't want to take it to the limit. IIRC the elliptical wing on the spit gave that plane a better turn radius than the 109. What the pilots do with that is a different story.

I agree, this was simply to showcase how the slats function, i.e. they helped prevent the wing from stalling by increasing lift, allowing for better turn performance.

I don't believe the 109 could turn tighter than the Spitfire, but they were closer in this respect than many believe, so close that the pilot made the difference, just as Mark Hanna said.

Another quote, this time from LW ace Franz Stigler:

- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?

"Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling"

It really shouldn't be hard to be good in the 109 since it climbs faster than it should and never runs out of coolant. lol It's only going to get more difficult if they ever get around to correcting it and get it out of beta.

The 109 is climbing as it should atm (German climb estimates are without exhaust thrust added), and is infact slower than it should be in leve speed at SL by at least ~30 km/h.

As for the comment on the coolant, I am not sure what you mean by that.