Author Topic: BF109G Question  (Read 305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline _AH_Olds

  • Aces High Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • GM! Bring Back Olds!
BF109G Question
« on: March 06, 2019, 11:39:03 PM »
I was watching a documentary on Amazon Prime last night about "The Ultimate History of the Messerschmitt". One thing that I found hard to believe is that they said that when the G series came out, it was even more difficult to land. It stated that the plane had to be landed at full throttle, and that "experienced pilots called the Gustavs landing characteristics malicious". Is this correct? In all the time I have flown the 109G in this game and BOS, I have never seen this modeled. Your thoughts? I know it can be a bit hard to land, but not that hard.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference". - Harry S. Truman

Offline _AH_DarkWolf

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6481
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2019, 01:00:25 AM »
Huh, you're right they certainly aren't like that in the games. I've read about 109s being difficult because of the narrow landing gear but I think that applies to all 109s across the board. Landing at full throttle seems peculiar.

DW



"In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will" - Winston S. Churchill

Offline _AH_Hollywood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • It never happened!
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2019, 01:00:53 AM »
stubby little wheels that are bolted on to the fuselage.... not to mention super narrow...  I can see that ...

Quote
An advantage of this design was that the main landing gear, which retracted through an 85-degree angle, was attached to the fuselage, making it possible to completely remove the wings for servicing without additional equipment to support the fuselage. It also allowed simplification of the wing structure, since it did not have to bear the loads imposed during takeoff or landing. The one major drawback of this landing gear arrangement was its narrow wheel track, making the aircraft unstable while on the ground. To increase stability, the legs were splayed outward somewhat, creating another problem in that the loads imposed during takeoff and landing were transferred up through the legs at an angle.[19]
  - good ol' wiki

Quote
Because of the large ground angle caused by the long legs, forward visibility while on the ground was very poor, a problem exacerbated by the sideways-opening canopy. This meant that pilots had to taxi in a sinuous fashion which also imposed stresses on the splayed undercarriage legs. Ground accidents were a problem with inexperienced pilots, especially during the later stages of the war when pilots received less training before being sent to operational units.[20] At least 10% of all Bf 109s were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941.[21] The installation of a fixed "tall" tailwheel on some of the late G-10s and -14s and the K-series helped alleviate the problem to a large extent.[22]


"You sneaky little bastards aren't getting doodly sh*t from me, except maybe my name, rank, and Social Security number: Wood, Hollis P., Lumberjack, Social Security 106-43-2185."-Slim Pickens-The movie-1941

Offline _AH_DarkWolf

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6481
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2019, 07:03:28 PM »
Yeah that seems familiar but it applies to all 109s in general right? The crux of what Olds is talking about is they were saying the Gustav in particular had these wicked characteristics.

DW


"In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will" - Winston S. Churchill

Offline _AH_Hollywood

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • It never happened!
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2019, 10:00:55 PM »
Well... perhaps it had to do with rudder authority... I'm no expert on Axis planes... was the difference between an F-2 and F-4 the size of the rudder.. plus guns.


Wasn't the G model the most prolific...?
"You sneaky little bastards aren't getting doodly sh*t from me, except maybe my name, rank, and Social Security number: Wood, Hollis P., Lumberjack, Social Security 106-43-2185."-Slim Pickens-The movie-1941

Offline _AH_DarkWolf

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6481
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2019, 10:54:25 PM »
The only difference between the F-2 and F-4 is the nose cannon. 15mm vs 20mm. I think the early G airframe was very close to the Fs.

I transcribed this from a book many moons ago : https://aceshigh.ws/forum/index.php?topic=4488.msg65374#msg65374

Doesn't cover the F but makes reference to the early Gs being fairly similar.

DW


"In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will" - Winston S. Churchill

Offline _AH_Olds

  • Aces High Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • GM! Bring Back Olds!
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2019, 02:46:08 AM »
If you get a chance, watch "The Ultimate History of the Messerschmitt". They gave the F high marks, but when it got to the G, they said that the additional armament and other added features led to the poor landing characteristics. They also stated that the F had a 50mm cannon and two machine guns...never seen a 50mm before in a 109! Not sure if this information is very accurate.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference". - Harry S. Truman

Offline Kopfdorfer

  • Guest Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2019, 03:26:34 AM »
You mean MG151, I suspect , a 2cm Cannon.
I doubt the 109 could get off the ground safely with a 5cm Cannon !

Kopfdorfer

Offline _AH_DarkWolf

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6481
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2019, 03:32:40 AM »
50cm cannon eh. I'm starting to think the producers of the show got into Bear's private stash.

DW


"In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Good Will" - Winston S. Churchill

Offline _AH_Olds

  • Aces High Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • GM! Bring Back Olds!
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2019, 11:15:35 AM »
Probably  :lol :lol
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference". - Harry S. Truman

Offline _AH_Col._Hogan

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
  • S.A.P.P.
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2019, 11:04:53 PM »
Dirty Dirty nazi birds...

Offline _AH_Lippy

  • Aces High Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2297
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2019, 11:31:02 PM »
109 where being shoot down at a fast rate the G model is heavier due to some added armor which might make landing more of a problem. I dont remember where the info came from a docu I watched on the 109 I think. Anyway if they didnt beef up the gear the weight might have been too much.

Offline Kopfdorfer

  • Guest Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
Re: BF109G Question
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2019, 12:40:27 AM »
I think Hollywood's on the right track.
As the 109G got heavier it required a more powerful engine = more torque = faster stall speed with roughly the same rudder area = low rudder authority at low speeds.

Kopfdorfer

Offline _AH_Col._Hogan

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
  • S.A.P.P.