It was by no means a bad aircraft, but it was far from perfect and by the war's end the Allies were fielding superior aircraft and German aircraft procurement and production was in a poor state as a result of bad decision making. This isn't a controversial opinion.

I actually rather like the Bf-109. It had an interesting history, looked cool and the various versions showed invention and originality in the development of the basic airframe. I would also level many similar criticisms at the Spitfire (narrow track U/C, overly-complex wing construction, poor armament on the early versions etc).

It's an odd thing about some flight simmers that they feel they have to pick sides in WWII and defend the reputation of aircraft from 70 years ago. For myself, I'm just interested in history and in aviation.

PS - nice welcome!

Well, considering that the one who started this thread shows a real hatred of the Spitfire and loads his posts with expressions like "Spitliarforum", "It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well." - as if objective flight reports written 70 years ago reflect his personal prejudices - and generally acts as though it was lucky the Spitfire actually flew at all, it's a little rich to be objecting to those who defend the aircraft as "109 haters".

As it happens I don't agree with some of Sandstone's comments; for example, the 109 was better designed for mass production than the Spitfire - witness the problems involved in getting the Spitfire into production at all. The 109 had a much better modular construction, its engine was far easier to remove and access for servicing etc etc...

Fact is that both were fine fighters, given that both were designed and built only 30 odd years after the Wright flyer; each had their weaknesses, but there are a lot of grateful pilots who owe their lives to both the 109 and Spitfire and both deserve to be right up there with the best aircraft of their generation.

Totally agree. It's a shame that we appear that way but all that is happening is we have to correct the extreme viewpoint of a single fanatic. His argument is flawed fundamentally though, since he makes so many claims of superiority by both machine and pilot - yet his side still lost. A heavy cross to bear indeed, I can see how he cannot reconcile, poor chap.

Hello, Typhoon. I actually agree with you. The Spitfire was also not a particularly good design for mass production (or low-hours pilots). As you say, it was probably even less so than the Bf-109. The beautiful elliptical wing is a case in point. It conferred at best a small performance gain, but was a sod to manufacture. Not worth it in a war where mass production is required. It's noticeable that none of the second generation Allied fighter aircraft used such a wing. Where the British did score with the Spitfire was that they organised its manufacture quite efficiently. So they mobilised the female population, organised the factories, rationalised the development of the aircraft and involved industrialists in the process (so as to provide the best aircraft that could be produced rather than the best aircraft that could be designed) etc. They also worked on bringing forward designs that addressed the shortfalls of the Spitfire and managed to get them into service.

In contrast, the German aviation industry was asked to generate a bewildering variety of prototypes, suffered from very poor management and was faced with a manpower and skills crisis as industry personnel were drafted out to the services. The result was an industry that moved from a high-tech one built around a skilled workforce and modest production to one that was reliant on slave labour to achieve a level of mass production. In such an industry it is no surprise that the record of new types successfully introduced was unimpressive.

I posted here because I saw someone claim that the Bf-109 was the aircraft equivalent of the T-34 tank. But as far as I can see, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Interestingly, the Germans did try to develop a cheap fighter aircraft that could be mass produced by unskilled labour using non-strategic materials and so might be a better analogue of the T-34. This was the Heinkel-162 jet fighter. It was cheap, used a wooden airframe, could be built by unskilled and slave labour and was supposed to be easy to fly and operate. The unit cost was ~ 75,000 RM, compared to ~ 144,000 RM for a Ta-152 or ~ 150,000 RM for an Me-262. Of course, it was a disaster because the industry was attempting something far beyond its abilities.

It's interesting to compare this with the approaches to production adopted by the Allies. The Russians mass produced simple but effective designs like the IL-2 and La-5 series or the T-34 tank. For all its faults, Russian production was very rational in recognising what could be achieved. Similarly, in the West, industrialists were heavily involved in the selection of designs, with Ford's astonishing Willow Run plant representing the ultimate 1940s expression of harnessing industry to aircraft production.

It is sobering to consider the different lives experienced by a worker at Willow Run building B-24s and a malnourished slave worker in an underground factory in Germany building Bf-109s.

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him. He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap. (small, little switch on the top of dashboard, i doubt, the pilots can using it under hihg G - but in the game, this is the favorite evasive maneuvers by the reds, if the 109 stuck on their 6). He was only interested to find something to make it difficult the German tactics. Of course, in the name of historical authenticity...

So, you may argue with Kurfurst motivation, but the fact is that the red side has same patriots, who fight for only their side. Don't get me wrong. I really have no trouble with it, it would be hypocrisy to say that it does not exist. It's fine, everyone personal motive may be different from the other. But I don't think this would be fair attack a topic, just because one of these "patriot" started...

Barbi doesn't lie. That is a good one. hahahahahahahahahaha

I don't know him, and I have no reason to have any kind of prejudice. All I see is that he's pushing a bit too hard for too long. Same goes for some other people around here, but since you mentioned him...

I don't think anyone has got any problem with the data he provides. It actually is very useful and I enjoy reading it. I understand he is a 109 enthusiast and somehow tends to interpret this historical data and charts in rather biased way. I am also enthusiast but I like the WWII planes equally. I have to admit I therefore realised he was wrong many times because although his knowledge of German side is extensive, he somehow lacks in the RAF information and his opinions are often one-sided. There is no problem with that, because the same problem is on the RAF side. The truth is apparently somewhere in the middle. There is always problem with objectivity where there is passion involved. Without this passion though, there would be less drive for knowledge. I would say the problem he's got is from his past reputation and personal conflicts he's had. I don't judge anyone, I have never had a problem with him but I also have to take what he says with pinch of salt. I don't have that kind of feeling with anyone representing the red side here their claims and theories are not nearly as biased and ridiculous and my personal view is that they are more reasonable somehow.

Well in fact, he was right about the sensitivity of the trim and data was provided (we had this conversation about if the RAE data was actually useful and the test of a captured machine legit and relevant - I found this very interesting). The trim in the sim can be used in a way that has nothing to do with the its real life usage. I am using it in the 109 to turn into Spitfires and I know that's stupid. The thread actually started after a conversation we had on the TS (Osprey and me and several other squadmembers) about what is wrong with the game. Same goes with the Spitfire flaps...

...which you mention here - you know it was me who raised this issue on the il2bugtracker (and Osprey voted for that) as I find is equally as ridiculous as the trim exploit. The thread was for discussion only, there is no bug raised by Osprey on the bugtracker and he actually stated this was the case on all planes in the sim. He mentioned the 109 specifically because of the unique Hoehenflosse design and believe it or not, it was for the authenticity sake. I also exploited the flap behaviour of the Spitfire when I got bounced by a 109 pilot who would be turning into my break turn at 500km/h dive using the trim. We both know that this is nonsense and it should be addressed. Mind you this was on Repka 4 df server for fun. I am not doing either on normal servers. But I know it exists and it bothers me a lot. The motivation is indeed to get more of 'Battle of Britain' into what is now 'Airquake'.

I agree, both sides are guilty and some people are pushing too hard and it is obvious that they listen to their tune only.

Hi Sandstone,

I have disagree on this. The narrow undercarriage was not a result of the small airframe size, but a result of two factors: 1, Messerschmitt credo was to keep the airframe the lightest possible, and wings light, so the main load bearing element would be the fuselage, not the wing. Thus the wing had to take less stress and could be lightened. 2, It was seen beneficial from production and maintaince so that the wings could be quickly replaced without removing etc. the undercarriage.

The narrow undercarriage itself did not contribute much to the ground looping tendencies of the plane, these were related to other design features, not related to airframe size: the geometry (toe-in) of the undercarriage and the relative rearward CoG of the airframe.

True, a bubble canopy would have offered better vision, but I doubt it would have been impossible to do. The British seem to have little problem of fitting one to the Spitfire (or the US with the P-47/-51), which had a similiar razorback fuselage/canopy arrangement as the 109. It would have required a change in fuselage shape (production delays) and likely the same stability problems as encountered on the Spit / 51. The vision was only restricted to rear, after the introduction of the pilot's steel headpiece, but since this was fixed in late 1942 by the introduction of the transparent Galland headpiece, the vision to the rear was again acceptable.

I guess the definition of 'limited range' is depends on the operational requirements.

While the 109E had indeed limited range (660 km), adding droptanks extended this range to ca 1300 km, and the engine and airframe improvements of the 109F-K increased this to 1600km. The K's rear tank could be used as an extra fuel tank, increasing internal capacity by 25%, so I guess the K could get as far as 1800-2000 km. While not as good as the Mustang, I would say this was more than sufficient for German operational needs. If it would be really needed, I would guess the internal capacity could have been increased further.

Nope, the 109 was quite capable of carrying heavy armament (3x20 + 2x13mm) with gondola attachments. Contrary to popular belief, these were not any more degrading to perfomance than internal installations, as the details of Spitfire/ Fw 190 installations I have examined show. Drag and weight costs were identical.

The airframe was also quite capable of carrying them inside the wings, see 109K-6 - K-14, which could carry an MK 108 (or MG 151) in each wing, or post-war Spanish versions of the 109G, which carried a Hispano in each wing. However the Germans typically favoured fuselage armament for the advantages in concentrated firepower it offered. With the 109 (or any other aircraft with H-P slats) the usable space within the wing for armament installation was also rather limited, since the slats covered much of the wing, while the wheel bay took up the roots. Any gun installation was only possible between the one or two section confined between these two.

Quad 20mm is of course probably the most ideal armament for a WW2 fighter, but you really have to ask yourself wheter these planes (Fw 190, Typhoon/Tempest) could offer the same climb or turn performance as the 109. The answer is no.. and with extra armament, the 109 was definietely not worse than any of these.

Also, you describe as if there was a movement towards wing mounted guns, as if things were evolving that way. There was no such thing, whenever possible, everyone went to fuselage mounted guns, because of the obvious advantages: more space for ammo, better concentration and effectiveness of fire. The only designs that went for wing guns were those which's engine installations did not permit enough guns to be mounted in the fuselage - Merlins, Allisons could not take engine cannons, which is why the Spitfire always had wing mounted guns only, as the supercharger was mounted behind the engine and was in the way, the Sabre was quite simply too big, and radials rule out the thing completely, apart from some smaller cowl guns.

I have to strongly disagree on this one. The 109 was indeed designed for mass production, by the merit of smart design, enabled by smartly designed generous tolerances.

I direct you to the French report on the 109E they have captured, it strongly contradicts any thesis of the need for a skilled workforce.

Also, this analogue with the He 162:

Compared to the 'cheap' He 162 unit cost of ~ 75.000,- RM, you might find it interesting that the unit cost of the 109E-3, produced by Erla was 59.000,- RM in 1940, but kept decreasing during the war, as the 109F brought further simplifications to production. F-4s produced by Erla were produced at a unit cost of 50.400,- RM, while 109G were reduced to about 43-45 000 RM. G-10, G-14, K-4 were produced at 43.700 RM at the war's end.

Also of interesting are the ridiculusly low man hours required for production compared to any other type. The 109E was produced at 5400 man hours in 1940 (compare to 10 000 hours for the Hurricane and 15 000 hours for the Spitfire...),but by the war's end a 109G/K was produced in just 1600 hours while a Fw 190 required about 3100 hours. On avarage it seems that a 109 could be produced at about 2/3 the man hours required through the war. IIRC the Mustang, even with the peacetime conditions and mass production techniques in the

The very simple reason why the 109 was not replaced is that nobody could come up with a fighter with the same qualities, while also being as cheap as the 109. The Germans for example considered some of the Italian types, but those required about 3 times the labour to produce one. And a choice between one similiar or slightly superior design or three 109s is a very simple one to make.

The 109 had some design limitations I agree, but for the task it was conceived these were not restricting and was aduquate until the arrival of the jets. Its own domestic rival, the Fw 190 while heavier, was also of very small size. It traded some qualities of the 109 (high altitude performance, horizontal manouverability and climb performance) for extra load carrying capability and ruggedness. The two designs complemented each other but neither could - or did - replace the other.

As for mass production - the 109 was the most produced fighter in history.. so what are you talking about..? I think you'd also find that the WNF plant erected during the war strongly implemented mass production techniques (conveyor line production etc.)

http://www.planefax.com/radar/bf-109-assembly-line.jpg

True, but the coin had two sides, larger airframes could not offer the same performance or be as cost effective either. For the very same reason the Spitfire was not replaced by the overall more advanced Tempest, the 109 was not replaced by the 190. It had qualities that could not be found elsewhere.

I would not mention the P-40 or Hurricane in the same generation. The Hurricane was an obsolate transitional airframe, and the P-40 was clearly a dead-end. Simply too large which curtailed its performance, without offering anything worthwhile in exchange. And unlike those designs, the 109 had room to grow, exactly because the basic recipe of a light, cheap and clean airframe with benign flying characteristics tolerant for pilot errors, was made right in the beginning. This ensured that with any given powerplant, maximum performance was obtained.

The Spitfire had similar performance through the war - and similar limitations - but as far as production techniques go, it was half a generation behind the 109. I do not think the 109 could be replaced by any other type. Certainly not one as dirt cheap as it was, and I doubt that overall superior qualities could be achieved. If you think so, I'd like to hear what type you believe had these qualities.

Just a thought on narrow undercarriage.

I thought another reason for this was that the the original spec drawn up by the Germans stated that the aircraft had to be easily transportable by train? To fit in with the whole ethos of mobility.

Hence the design that enabled the wings to be taken off without need for lifting equipment. They could just roll them onto a flatbed truck.

Tom, Robo is correct, that is exactly what happened. I started a discussion topic to find out more which it did, exposing an exploit in game. It wasn't "against German elevator trim" at all, I requested information from German fliers about it's use in game and in real life as comparison.
After all of that I haven't seen a bug raised though I suggested it should happen from the outcome of the thread and asked if you wouldn't mind raising it. I respect your opinion on the 109, you seem to seek historical truth, is there a reason why this bug hasn't been raised?

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared, because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does. You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to. I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game. I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

PS. I have never suggested that he forges documents but he does select those which favour his argument and dismiss those which don't. He also creates his own documentation with the same style.

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.


You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.

Nice. I can just imagine that you must've totally lost it during that diatribe, you don't like bites into your reputation above everything else. Too late though, everybody has you sussed out mate :D

I haven't voted for some of the Luftwaffe bugs purely because I do not know the facts of the matter, because just voting without knowing would just be plain stupid don't you think? If I were against them then I'd have voted against.

But the real lunacy is the implication that I want the 109 'nerfed'. Absolutely not. But even a complete dunce can see from your own data that the 109 roll rate is worse than the Spitfire at high speeds, even when you use comparative data from 'rogue' aircraft against captured 109's.
More simply and in support of my suggestion of your bias is that you apply the adjective 'nerfed' to anything that is of detriment to the 109, regardless of fact. So thanks for supporting my point here.

PS Please take the time to look up No.501 squadron and which type we fly, just to correct you on another conclusion you've jumped to.

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

Out of interest, do you consider yourself as objective?

He does, nobody else does though.

@Kurfurst. Hypocritical of you to make demands on others when you are a master of avoiding questions and evidence when you are asked to prove some of your other claims. I don't operate to your demands pal, I'll do it when I'm good and ready, it wouldn't make this patch anyway. I've still got to tidy up bug 174 after you posted your rubbish about the Spitfire IIa boost allowance.

You haven't experienced the nastier side of Kurfurst here, on other forums, or on Wikipedia so it would be fair to say that there is another side to this; Kurfurst has (almost deliberately) provoked a great deal of animosity against himself and any views he supports, which has led to some prejudice against the Bf 109. Fair enough though, no further attacks on the source.

However, the data he has presented here, although genuine, is skewed against the Spitfire because it represents one aspect of a complex whole. By maintaining that flight reports about rogue Spitfires with badly adjusted ailerons - reports that are described by Geoffrey Quill - are representative of the flight characteristics of all Mk I Spitfires with fabric ailerons, is drawing an extremely long bow, as is presenting a Rechlin report about a captured Spitfire which may or may not have sustained damage to its ailerons or other parts of the airframe which helped skew the report. I know there have often been complaints about presenting A&AEE or RAE reports about captured 109s because of the state the airframes may have been in. Alfred Price suggests that there was often a certain amount of propaganda involved on both sides, so a degree of caution is needed when using WW2 flight test reports about an enemy's aircraft to generate objective data about that aircraft.

Geoffrey Quill noted that one of his major frustrations with the early Spitfires was the heaviness of the fabric ailerons at high speeds, another problem being, as he explained, the sensitivity of the fabric ailerons to slight variations of tolerances in and around the wing structure and on the aileron itself. The adoption of the metal covered ailerons did away with many of those variations and were on the vast majority of Spitfires.

As is often the case some of what Kurfurst says I agree with and other parts I don't. I totally agree with him re the ease of production and maintanence of the 109. These factors were well thought out during the design phase the RAF were very impressed about this and I have their report should anyone want me to post it.

His comments about the wing mounted weapons is partly true. They did have some impact on the 109's performance that is inevitable with the extra drag, but the biggest impact wasn't on a drop in speed which was a smaller reduction than you might think, but in handling. Difficult to measure but a major impact in combat, fine against unescorted bombers but you didn't want to tangle with a fighter with that extra load.

On the subject of 100 octane fuel for the RAF in the BOB we are poles apart and I do not suggest we get sucked into that topic here.

Sorry to interrupt, but: Kurfürst, you've a PM from me.

Artist