[LeBigTed]

Hi Mates ;o)

A great video for you all : 75 year old Messerschmitt BF109 E4 flys again

Enjoy it !!!!!!!

Ted

[Fireskull]

Thank you, LeBigTed!

That was a sentimental video for anyone interested in WW2, for sure - myself included. Even with simple maneuvers, I really got a sense of the fighter's power and agility.

One would think that having almost half the fuel gone by the time the pilot got over jolly ole England, the Bf-109s would be very nimble with the reduced weight. I have read for years that over 90% of fighter engagements were decided in 3 minutes or less between two or more aircraft, so I feel that the low fuel issue was not a much of a factor as many believe - unless a Bf-109 takes leaking damage to tanks or fuel lines.

It would be interesting to know how many or if this Bf-109 is on record with confirmed kills.


Clinton

[Deutschmark]

Cool video thanks Ted

Deutschmark

[Ice_Eagle]

Great video LeBigTed!

In regards to the low fuel, that severely limits the time fighters can escort bombers, and the 'free hunt'. Once that red light turns on, you have to head
back to France, and that's when one is most vulnerable. Marseille found that out as he crashed landed 3 times at Cap Griz Nez for running out of fuel!
Cap Griz Nez is the closest point to France from Dover.

[LeBigTed]

Hi Gentlemen,

a new gift for you as you are very sympathetic ;o)


Ted

[caldrail]

Thank you, LeBigTed!

That was a sentimental video for anyone interested in WW2, for sure - myself included. Even with simple maneuvers, I really got a sense of the fighter's power and agility.

One would think that having almost half the fuel gone by the time the pilot got over jolly ole England, the Bf-109s would be very nimble with the reduced weight. I have read for years that over 90% of fighter engagements were decided in 3 minutes or less between two or more aircraft, so I feel that the low fuel issue was not a much of a factor as many believe - unless a Bf-109 takes leaking damage to tanks or fuel lines.

It would be interesting to know how many or if this Bf-109 is on record with confirmed kills.


Clinton

The fuel issue was vital. A bg V12 engine (I don't the DB's capacity, but a comparable Merline was 28 litres) drinks fuel at a horrendous rate at high power settings, so when combat begins, the endurance of the 109 rapidly diminshes, and pilots were warned to keep an eye on their fuel gauges to make sure they went home with enough to cross the channel. It isn't just the potential for forced landings - it was also the potential for giving the enemy a gift of an enemy front line fighter and the loss of experienced aircrew.

[Fireskull]

It is amazing to me that I read or see on television how more Bf-109 pilots were lost in landing and take-off accidents than were lost in combat. Has anyone else read that? In the Battle of Britain, the Bf-109s could out climb and out dive the Spitfires, thus giving them the ability to escape in many situations. I believe that if the 109s were made with wide landing gear, then fewer pilots would have been lost and it might have tipped the battle in favor of the Luftwaffe. What do you think?


Clinton

[LeBigTed]

Yes Clinton it is right, I have read that too.

Ted

[Ice_Eagle]

100% myth. The takeoff/landing accident rates was about 10% (this includes pilot error, combat damage, mechanical failure, running out of fuel, etc.) It's no worse the say the P-51 which had a very wide stance. The design of the gear was two fold, ease of matenance when removing wings, and optimized for forward airfield bases, ie: grass/dirt runways.

As far as fuel consumption, the 37 liter DB 605 series engines had better economy then the Merlins, the problem here was the limited onboard fuel. One 300 liter main tank, and a optional 300 liter droptank. On economy settings the 109 could fly 1000km however.

[caldrail]

A lovely sight, it really is, but why did he turn in to the runway so low? Why did he lower flaps during the landing run?

Incidentially the 109 was notorious for bumslandung ("Heavy Landing") accidents and almost half the airframes written off were down to landing accidents. To say it's a myth is ridiculous. There's been a lot of revisionism in recent years but a lot of it is rather more dubious than the belief that the history it replaces is. Period testimony also backs up the high accident rate. Heinz Knocke recalls having to fly a 109G that had been damaged in a landing previously.

Notably the Germans were horrified at the way the finns flew them on their handover flights.


PS - I've since realised the pilot is using flaps as airbrakes to shorten his landing run. That's a ploy that might be expected of a short field pilot and not something my instructor would ever have allowed me to do, but it's a valid tactic despite some question of effect, since the full flap deflection doesn't occur until the aeroplane is at a slow pace and thus is doing little more than exposing the surface to possible damage from loose objects on a rough field, but there you go.

For those who haven't realised, turning in so late and low may improve last minute visibility of the airfield/runway (we are dealing with taildraggers coming in nose high) but the consequences of turbulence, wind shear, sidwewinds, vortices, and any other atmospheric disturbance that low and slow can only serve make risking a wingtip strike all the more dangerous.

You never ever trust to something you can't see - that's something I very nearly learned the hard way more than once.