Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/Archive 1

Untitled
According to my roommate's "Golden Age of Flight 2004 Desktop Calender", Spanish-built versions of the BF-109 were actually powered by the same rolls-royce engines as the British Spitfires! I was kind of doubtful, but if you look around on the net for pictures, you can see versions of the BF-109 that clearly have the same air intake and exhaust systems as the spitfire. Its kind of a cool bit of trivia, and fairly ironic given the number of times that the two planes met in battle in WWII. See here: -lommer 01:27, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is an article on the Me155, not the Me109. Could someone in the know add information on the plane listed in the title?

The new material looks like a copyvio, from "The Development" tab at http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm - I couldn't find a license anywhere at the original site. Stan 14:01, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wait, I'm working on it. The text here was cut from the "Bf-109" article, and I'll have it fixed. I also have plenty of pictures. Gimme a few days, I'm on it.


 * No prob, I was idly looking at adlertag.de and surprised at the familiar-looking text. :-) Stan 02:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bf 109F - Franz or Friedrich?
Bf 109Fs seem to be called both Franz and Friedrich. What's the difference between them? Was "Franz" called by the allied? And was "Friedrich" called by Luftwaffe? Or no clear difference? -- Marsian 11:20, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
 * None of these names were ever official, it just so happens that German pilots used to expand the designation letter to some common first name ("D" planes were usually called Dora, "G" planes Gustav, etc). The more common name given to the F was "Franz", but since the whole naming issue was completely informal, some machines were in fact called "Friedrich" by their pilots and ground crews. -- Ferkelparade π 11:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. In fact I knew D for Dora, etc. but I wasn't sure because there're two names for F...  All right, now I got it.  They were completely informal, okay.  Thanks a lot again. -- Marsian 16:28, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)


 * The "names" were not informal. They were taken directly from the standardized (civilian and military) German phonetic alphabet that was also used in Luftwaffe radio communications. The code for "F" was (and is - the same phonetic alphabet is still in civilian use today) "Friedrich". In informal talk, this might be shortened to "Fritz" as it was German custom, but never to "Franz". The modern day equivalent would be: "Foxtrot", shortened to "Fox" (but never to "Fish" ;-) --172.178.67.224 22:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

neither franz or friedrich is correct. "the standardized (civilian and military) German phonetic alphabet that was also used in Luftwaffe radio communications" never refered to a plane, it was only a method to make radio conversion more precise. galland speaks never about a "franz"or "friedrich" in his book" die ersten und die letzten". cheers lumino

Kills?
I have heard that Germans were not as rigorous with what constituted a confirmed kill, does anyone know about this? Also, even if they were just as stringent it should be noted that they were generally shooting down slow, heavy bombers. How many of these huge kill numbers were against similar fighters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.64 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm affraid your grossly missinformed. The Germans were very rigorous in confirming kills. I think if you read about the top German aces ( 100 scored 100+, 8 scored 200+ and 2 scored 300+) most of their kills came against fighters. For example Hans-Joachim Marseille downed 158, exclusuvely against the British, all but four were fighters, Erich Hartmann scored 200 odd kills against fighters (out of a total of 352).

I would like to point out that it was not easy to shot down "slow heavy bombers". The US and British bombers well well armed and after the Spring of 1944 were well escorted. Scoring kills against the W.Allies was not easy. Dapi89 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Most produced aircraft?
The Russians clam 36,000 Ilyushin Il-2's were built, against only 33,000 109's - can anyone provide references for either of these figures? - Mmartins

Also consider the WII soviet Po-2 biplane, some 35,000 examples were built of it. Probably noone knows for sure which one of the three has the largest production run, but I guess the Il-2 should be the winner, because it's production run was a very short period (1940-1944) yet they made such a huge number of them.
 * The most produced fighter aircraft of WW II for sure, the Il-2 numbers contain Il-10 numbers as well. the Po-2 includes pre-war and post-war production numbers. --Denniss 11:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The "narrow landing gear" myth still in full swing
The landing gear track of ALL 109 variants was actually bigger than contemporary Spitfires: 109A had a track of "only" 1.75 meters, while E had 1.97 meters, G 2.06 meters, and K 2.1 meters. Early Spitfires (at least. I don't have information whether they changed the design later) had a track of only 1.68 meters.

As to the weakness of the undercarriage, some 1500 109s of all types were lost due to landing gear failures during the war. Considering the number of planes and missions flown (and the conditions from which many of them were flown), this is a minuscule amount. In addition, many of these were not "write-offs", as the article currently claims, but were repaired and returned to service. In fact, a 109s landing gear was supposed to survive the plane "dropping in" from 8-10 feet.

As to the "snaking" on the ground, all high-powered planes created torque and tended to veer unless controlled. Comparing test pilot reports of a Me109 and a Spitfire describes almost exactly similar ground handling.

The main problem with 109s seems to be that most of English-language sources quote only a few Allied war-era tests with captured equipment, often made with damaged planes, and by pilots unfamiliar with the plane they were testing (The 109 F being the most infamous in this respect: Most "Western" knowledge of this plane is based on a single 109F captured by the British, damaged in the landing, and flown by people who admit in their test report that they're not sure what the engine settings should be. This one test is then quoted everywhere, and for example a paper that appears to be a US test flight report with the 109F is in fact only a summary of the British test, with numerous errors sprinkled in to add to the confusion. And to top it off, the plane had a derated engine, while the Germans had already stopped derating them (originally derating them due to spark plug problems which they managed to solve). Even the Russians have reports that are nothing more than translations of this same British test (again with errors added in translation))

Changes to the article

 * Explanations of recent changes:
 * 1) The 35,000 figure for the 109 is highly dubios. The highest number I've seen anywhere is 33,675 fighter variants, in addition to the 1,325 recon variants.
 * So what makes it 'highly dubious'? The completeness Bf 109 production is hard to assess. There are several reasons for this, but most importantly, it`s the fact that some aircraft were new production, and this is usually what is counted in the primary sources quoted elsewhere; but at the same time thousends of older airframes were re-produced into more 'up-to-date' models - question is, wheter you count these or not, but customarily for other aircraft, rebuilds are counted in the production totals as well.


 * 1) "a rather short range" is quite an understatement. Even in Sept of 1939 it was not by any means outstanding; and by 1945 they still hovered around 600 km without droptanks, putting them right at the bottom of the table.
 * It`s not an understatement, it`s an old myth about short range stemming from old aviation history books. The early Bf 109s (A-B-C-D) had good range; the E model with it`s bigger engine meant that the range was reduced, despited the increase of fuel capacity to 400 liters, to about 660 km on economic settings, without a droptank. The droptank was introduced to the Emil, boostin the range up to a bit over 1300 km. The 109F under the same conditions, thanks to aerodynamic improvements and better engine effiency, increased that yet further to 1600 km with the same fuel capacity; subsequent documents give the Bf 109G`s range as 1000-1250 miles or 1600-2000 km under the same conditions. The Bf 109K`s range at high speeds is given as similiar, if little improved compared to the Gustav; more importantly, the K series had an extra 115 liter rear tank, that could be either used as a tank for the MW-50 booster fluid or as an extra fuel tanks for appx. 25% increased internal tankage.


 * The figures I cite are from my collection of wartime primary documents, and can be considered reliable compared to secondary sources and popular aviation books.


 * Not short ranged by any definition. The range after the E model was comparable to the FW 190 under similiar conditions, or comparable, and in cases superior to certain British and practically all Soviet fighter aircraft.


 * The reason for the confusion is that older aviation books quote the Bf 109`s range at maximum cruise speeds, ie. worst economy settings at high speeds between 600-650 km/h; usually without droptanks. This is due to the fact that some of the German datasheets they use a basis simply don`t give range with either droptanks or at economic settings. Other German or Allied intelligence datasheets however, do.


 * - Kurfürst, Website admin of the 'Kurfürst' bf 109 performance site


 * 1) "spent the first half of the war locked in combat with the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire". This is sloppy, especially as followed by the sentence "performance was fairly equal, producing a deadly stalemate between the two aircraft".
 * 2) The Yak-3 and the La-5 were listed; what of the Yak-9 and La-7?
 * 3) The entire paragraph is strangely Spitfire-centric, incomplete, POV-ish and arguably has no place right at the top of the page. I would suggest a comparative "contemporary adversaries" section later on listing the match-ups with other fighters of the day, if it can be kept reasonably neutral, and not an original research.
 * 4) "matching or outperforming even the Mustang" - POV-ish, as it implies that the Mustang was somehow a pinnacle of performance.
 * 5) Whether the Spitfire's undercarriage was narrower or not, the isues with the 109's gear are widely known. They are listed in plenty of sources other than contemporary Allied reports; the number of 109s lost to accidents alone is testament to the problem.


 * And another topic to discuss: the article is extremely long. Should there be specific pages for the sub-models, linked from here?
 * I reverted your rewrite and added some better production infos. Please do not make the usual error done by most authors using the max cruise speed to compare range. Use eco cruise and range will get much better. The sentence about Spit and 109 is correct but it seems someone added the Hurri without changing the sentence behind. The K-4 was indeed better than the Mustang ( speed, climbrate, matched in maneuverability or slghtly better) but they appeared only in small numbers . The 109 losses are not only because of the narrow landing gear but mostly because of the powerful engine. Pushing the throttlle too fast forward often ended in a crash because of the huge torque. --Denniss 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm back from vacation I want to return to this discussion. The paragraph seriously needs work. Let's go sentence by sentence
 * 1. The Bf 109 was the standard fighter of the Luftwaffe from just before the start of the war, and spent the first half of the war locked in combat with the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire.
 * The first half of the war is three and a half years, 1939 - 1942. During this time the 109 fought many aircraft in addition to the two British fighters, and I see absolutely no reason to concentrate on those specifically, especially in such a broad time frame.
 * 2. Early in the war, the Messerschmitt usually held the altitude advantage, and performance was fairly equal, producing a deadly stalemate between the two aircraft. 
 * As I already posted above, this is unacceptable. What 'two aircraft'? Why does this belong in the header?
 * 3. The advent of the Spitfire IX with its two-stage supercharger changed the balance slightly in favor of the Spitfire, providing more engine power at higher altitude than the DB 605A was able to deliver. 
 * Why is this in the header? Should we also add equally detailed information on the matchups with the LaGG-3 - La-5 - La-5FN - La-7 line, the Yak-1 - Yak-7 - Yak-9 - Yak-3 line, the P-51B - P-51C -  P-51D, the P-47s, and so on?
 * 4. In the second half of the war, the Bf 109's primary opponents became the P-51 Mustang (which was powered by a two-stage Merlin engine similar to that used in the Spitfire), the Spitfire in it's later versions, the Hawker Typhoon and the Russian Yakovlev Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-5 fighter planes.
 * This is hardly encyclopedia quality information. Uses of the Bf-109 in the later half of the war went far beyond air superiority, and the aircraft it went up against were far more numerous than the four listed there. Why were those four chosen, and others were not? Why are we only listing fighters, and not bombers? Also, it should be "its", not "it's".
 * 5. Though the Bf 109 had some weaknesses, the most important of them a rather short range, it stayed competitive until the end of the war, with the last variant, the Bf 109K-4, matching or outperforming even the Mustang at most altitudes.
 * The ommission of the narrow landing gear is extremely puzzling. The sentence in your reply, "Please do not make the usual error done by most authors" is very significant to my point. We're not here to pass judgement on published work. The point of wikipedia is not presenting your opinion and deleting opinions you disagree with; the point of an encyclopedia is to present the entire range of accepted opinion. The narrow landing gear is certainly a widely reported problem, mentioned in plenty of German sources including pilot memoirs. Surely you won't argue that those sources exist - and since they do, this information belongs in the article.
 * Stayed competitive until the end of the war is too vague and potentially misleading. It wasn't the Bf 109 as a whole that remained competitive. It was the new versions. Older versions, that continued to serve up until May of 1945, were becoming obsolete.
 * And, once again, what's with the 'even the Mustang'? I'm not arguing about their comparative performances - I'm arguing about the inclusion of the Mustang as some sort of an aerodynamical standard by which other aircraft should be judged.
 * Summary: the header contains a lot of information of doubtful importance, selected by unknown criteria while other similar information is omitted. There are missing facts and errors in grammar. This needs to become less Spitfire and Mustang-centric, and encompass widely accepted opinions on the aircraft. Flyboy Will 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The info box
Aack! I just looked at it, and my head almost exploded. The info is all over the place, and is mixing information from the G-6 and other variants (first flight: 1935?). Information is of dubious accuracy - dimensions and performance don't even agree with any single sources listed on this very page, which all by the way differ. Finally, I'm not sure if the G-6 is really the best variant to choose for the specifics, it really wasn't the most brilliant of variants, but fine, I'll go with it.

Oh, and 730 km/h max speed? WHAT!!!

I've changed the table based on data from http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764307274, which is much more reputable than any web source, a volume three of a multi-volume study by a team of German researchers. Flyboy Will 03:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

the rate of climb in the info box seems to be questionable. mike spike writes in his book "die jaegerasse der deutschen luftwaffe" /pg 151 that a Bf 109 G-6 (later version with 1800hp DB 605) climbed 1390m/min = 4500 f/min. the sustained rate of climb is not easy to measure, and changes with altitude. chuck hawks writes in http://www.chuckhawks.com/me-109.htm Best climb for 109E with a DB 601A, 12 cyl. 1,100 h.p: 2,990 ft/min at 13,150 ft Climb to: 9,840 ft., 3 min.; 19,865 ft., 6.3 min. the climb rate of any 109F or 109G was clearly better than the climb rate of a 109 E. n.b.: the high rate of climb has been a design feature of the 109 construction, more than maneuvreabilty or Vmax. this source http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=13&L=1   shows a luftwaffe trial document stating the time to altitude of a "Bf 109-G" about 11 minutes to 10 km in average. cheers lumino

Extensive Changes
I have made a large number of changes to the article, including a largely new opening paragraph, amalgamation of the two seperate notes on Me vs Bf designation, and a re-odering and re-working of most of the different models. - Fods12 17:34, 1 January 2006 (EST)

Header, Once Again
Thanks very much to Fods12 for rewriting the header, I like it much better when it's so concise.

Regarding the constant reverting by User:Denniss of changes to the header that disagree with his opinion, please understand that neither you nor anyone else here is in a position to decide whether some commonly referred to fact is a myth or not. Let's take the First and the Last. I hope Adolf Galland is at least a marginally acceptable authority on the matter, whose opinion should not be readily discounted as a myth.


 * p. 24 "One of the main reasons for this [inability to achieve air superiority over Britain in 1940] was the short range of the ME-109". Notice, there's no "rather" in "short range".


 * p. 35 "The short range of the ME-109 became more nad more of a disadvantage"

and so on and so forth

There's also a gentleman named Gunther Rall you might have heard of. 
 * "The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow gear.  And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens."

Also, for some more recent events:.
 * "Die Ursache war einseitiges Aufsetzen mit dem Hauptfahrwerk, wodurch die Maschine ins Schlingern geriet, mit dem Tragflächenrandbogen den Boden berührte und sich dadurch abrupt drehte." Still not enough?

Now, please don't bring up the Spitfire etc - the fact that the 109 wasn't unique in its problems does not mean it didn't have the problem. In comparison to the Spitfire, 109's CoG was farther behind, which in conjunction with the narrow track made overbraking and one-wheel landings much more dangerous. Need more? I refer you to the Me-209 and Me-309. Notice anything interesting? Surely that old coot Willi must have had his reasons for playing around with the gear?

Regarding the FW-190 thing that was removed, I'm perplexed. Up to 15,000 pure fighter (not jabo) versions of the 190 were produced, and whole geschwadern were equipped with it from as early as 1942 until as late as the end of the war. Vast majority of these FW-190 regiments prior to their conversion flew the 109. That, I believe, is exactly what is called a partial replacement. Flyboy Will 06:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Article division
I just noticed that this article is over 32 kb. I propose that we split off the three main varients of the bf 109 (E, F and G), and give them seperate articles, which could include the lists of all the smaller varients. Any feedback regarding this? - Fods12, 15th January 2006

Emils, Gustavs, etc.
I'm highly skeptical of using Dora, Emil, Gustav, etc. for designations of these Luftwaffe fighters (the same goes for the FW 190 family). To my knowledge, these are largely modern inventions. Jane's published during the war years certainly makes no mention of these nicknames and they were not used by the contemporary pilots (certainly not in any of the memoirs/interviews I've seen from German, Allied, or Soviet pilots). - Emt147 Burninate!  08:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dora. Emil, Gustav and others are standard names for the letters D, E, G, etc in military use. Just like Echo, Foxtrot and others in english language. Typically pilots use either 109G or "the Gustav", same for 190D and "the Dora" or just only "Gustav" or "Dora".--Denniss 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that the names derive from model designations but I have not seen them used at all in the contemporary literature -- are they a modern invention? Allied pilots divided all 190s into "short-nosed" and "long-nosed." Soviets divided all 109s into "old" and "new" and "three-gun" vs "five-gun." No Emils or Doras there. - Emt147 Burninate!  20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the spoken alphabet was in service for a very long time. I'd like to point out that these names were nicknames and not official. --Denniss 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So do they belong in the article then? - Emt147 Burninate!  06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

we are not talking about the german phonetical alphabet.

there was a A-series, a B-series etc from every plane. would these not be "Anton" and "Berta" as well? the Me 262 A-1 was for sure not called "Schwalbe Anton"!

the question is: did someone call the 109 E really "Emil"? i would like to see some documents about that. all pilot reports i have read only mention "Me".

there was no reason to specify the series, the unit was completely equipped with 109 E, later completely with 109 F.

it is sure that the propaganda did not call her "Emil". imagine a propaganda movie, a group of 109 in take off. the comment was for sure not: "here our Emils are attacking again!"

my thought is that Emil, Anton and Gustav are 1970 post war myths by anglo saxon authors like william green. these myth are as stubborn as the 630 km/h 109 G Vmax myth by eric brown.

galland speaks in his book "die ersten und die letzten" only about Me(!) 109. he never used the (ridiciolous) term : " i jumped into my emil". "emil","gustav" or "kurfuerst" were NOT unofficial nicknames. They were and are still "standard names for the letters D, E, G, etc in military use. Just like Echo, Foxtrot and others in english language". i.e.: nobody refered to a P 51-D as a " delta". so: "do they belong in the article then?" cheers lumino

RLM contest
Since the RLM contest text seems to be largely common to all the aircraft involved, wouldn't it be better hived off to a separate article and a summary left in each planes article? GraemeLeggett 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Any one knows how to block this dude - > dude ? he has a history of vandalism (also on this page) and maybe we should do something about it. jinxs


 * Not sure if it's possible, especially if he's on dynamic IP. WHOIS points to what looks like an IP pool registered under the education department of a local council in Aberdeenshire, UK. Could either be someone working there or at a school using IPs registered through the council or something. Stele
 * I've checked - he used the same IP a couple of times to vandalise and even got plenty of warnings from others. I just don't know who should we contact re this. --Jinxs 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm interesting. Is there any relevant staff member of wikipedia we could contact re this? They could then contact the relevant admin in charge of the IP pool on the other side, who could then track the joker down from logs or something. For the reference of anyone who's interested, here's part of the result from the query (sorry it's a bit long):
 * % This is the RIPE Whois query server #1.
 * % The objects are in RPSL format.
 * % Rights restricted by copyright.
 * % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html
 * % Note: This output has been filtered.
 * %      To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.
 * % Information related to '212.219.248.0 - 212.219.248.255'
 * inetnum:        212.219.248.0 - 212.219.248.255
 * netname:        ABERDEENSHIRE-C
 * descr:          Aberdeenshire Council
 * descr:          JIPC-00004245 -  000000000000731
 * country:        GB
 * admin-c:        AR12583-RIPE
 * tech-c:         GW262-RIPE
 * status:         ASSIGNED PA
 * mnt-by:         JANET-HOSTMASTER
 * source:         RIPE # Filtered
 * person:         A Reid
 * address:        Aberdeenshire P & ICT Infrastructure
 * address:        Woodhill House Annexe
 * address:        Westburn Drive
 * address:
 * address:        UK
 * address:        AB16 5GJ
 * phone:          +44 1224 664289
 * nic-hdl:        AR12583-RIPE
 * mnt-by:         RMIFL-MNT
 * source:         RIPE # Filtered
 * person:         Guthrie Wernham
 * address:        Aberdeenshire Council
 * address:        Education Department
 * address:        Woodhill House Annex
 * address:        Westburn Road
 * address:        Aberdeen
 * address:        AB16 5GB
 * phone:          +44 1224 664474
 * fax-no:         +44 1224 664466
 * e-mail:         guthrie.wernham@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
 * nic-hdl:        GW262-RIPE
 * mnt-by:         JANET-HOSTMASTER
 * source:         RIPE # Filtered
 * % Information related to '212.219.0.0/16AS786'
 * route:          212.219.0.0/16
 * descr:          JANET
 * descr:          20 Guilford Street
 * descr:          London
 * descr:          WC1N 1DZ
 * descr:          UNITED KINGDOM
 * origin:         AS786
 * mnt-by:         JIPS-NOSC
 * source:         RIPE # Filtered
 * Stele 08:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stele 08:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Referenced specs
I'm tired of the pissing matches. I put in referenced specs this time. All changes must be accompanied by a credible reference or they will be reverted. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maximum speed 109 G-6
Does anyone have specific data for non-boostet maximum speed of the 109 G-6 ? The current figure of ~620 km/h is wrong because it's with climb and combat power and not with take-off and emergency. I have seen speed figures of about 640 km/h but from a G-6/R5 recon version and not of a stock G-6. MW-50 boosted versions should be able to reach 665 to 680 km/h. --Denniss 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder to reference any changes to make to the specs. Unreferenced changes will be reverted. - Emt147 Burninate!  01:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

the 109 G-6 was built in various versions with different sub types of the DB 605 so its not possible to make a statement of the general topspeed without specifying its euipment.m. rausch published this test document: Bf 109 F-4 670 km/h in 6.2 km alt / 625 km/h in 10 km alt (flown) Bf 109 G-1 700 km/h in 7.0 km alt /660 km/h in 10 km alt (flown) http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=29&L=1

lumino


 * Neither of those is a G-6. What's your point? - Emt147 Burninate!  17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

that is my point: the 109 G-6 was built in various versions with different sub types of the DB 605 so its not possible to make a statement of the general topspeed without specifying its euipment. lumino
 * Just use data of the plain G-6 with non-boosted DB 605A, maybe supplemented with the 1944 MW-50 boosted version with DB 605AM (AFAIK G-6/U3, later G-14). The G-6/AS is a specialized subvariant as well as the GM-1 boosted versions. We just need to have some good data really showing max speed and not something achieved with climb and combat power settings (that's where the ~620 km/h figure comes from). --Denniss 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In specs, the line just above the line that says "Max speed" is labeled "Powerplant." It should be obvious that the two go together. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Turning Circles
I added a paragraph contesting the indicated turning circles for the Emil. As the article stood, it gave the 109 a wider turn than either Spitfire or Hurricane. I have seen claims to the contrary by Len Deighton in his (non fiction) book "Fighter" and have inserted some text to indicate this. I have also tried to draw some attention to the relative fragility of the 109 (its tail planes had to be re-inforced by struts) which likely meant that altough the 109 may have a had tighter turn, its pilots may have been unwilling to risk their lives and their aircraft by fully pushing the envelope.

Designation sequences of German WWII planes
The designation sequences of German WWII planes seems incoherent:



Well haven't got time to do anything about it. SlowSam 07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some questions for those of you who work on german WWII planes:
 * 1) Should the designation sequences only contain military aircrafts?
 * 2) Should the sequences for WWII era aircrafts only point to other aircrafts of that time?
 * 3) Should prototypes be included in the sequences?
 * 4) If two planes has the same number should it be done like K 47/Fw 47 or like K 47 - Fw 47?

I found these two articles that sheds some light on how the numbering system worked. RLM aircraft designation system and List of RLM aircraft designations. SlowSam 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Swiss termination of service
Two quotes from the article: "The Swiss Air Force used their Bf 109Gs until 1946." and "The Swiss used their Bf 109Gs well into the 1950s."! Does anyone know wich one is correct? --Towpilot 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be 1949 according to this link, and the web page seems to be quite trustworthy. MoRsΞ 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Messerschmitt Bf109 in Swiss Service by Philippe Osché (Translated by Patrick Laureau) 1996 Lists individual service histories for all the Swiss Bf109s. The last 109Gs appear to have been written off May 28 1948, the last 109Es appear to have been written off December 28 1949. I'm a bit of a Wiki newbie but if I can work out how to reference properly I'll correct the article. Gpkenny 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cost
How much did one cost to build in natural resources, does anyone know? Lokqs 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"limited armament-carrying capacity"
Please explain. I certainly don't consider one 30mm gun, two 20 guns and two 12.7mm machine guns limited, and this is merely one of the many "arms outfits" of Bf 109. --Kurt Leyman 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ata
Could someone add an explanation of what "ata" means, as in "...up to 5,800 ft/min at 1.98ata, and 5,500 ft/min at 1.8ata." GrahamBould 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ATA means "atmosphere absolute", i.e. normal pressure is 1 ATA (1013 mbar) MoRsE 11:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. Unfortunately, I still don't know what it means in the context. eg where would you find nearly double the normal pressure? And if you were rising rapidly wouldn't the pressure change - when would you take the reading? I'm suggesting that it might be a good idea to Wiki "ata" to a page that gives the answers.  Or maybe I'm just thick  ::-) GrahamBould 11:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Boost pressure the engine operates with. --Denniss 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've provided a link, but there is bound to be a better one. GrahamBould 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

range
the range figures in table 109 G-6 are nonsense by pure mathematics. 850 km on internal, 1000 km with drop tank? who calculated that ?? internal fuel load was 400 l, + 300 l in standard drop tank.

so the droptank will maximise range by nearly 75% minus added drag and weight, not only 20% as stated.

Lumino 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily - the drop tank introduces extra drag and weight, so the increase in range from fuel carried externally will be less than the same amount of fuel caried internally. Nigel Ish 14:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ranges are not easy to determine because speed and powersettings have a great effect. With the usually quoted high cruise speed range was about 600-700 km, drop tanks should have raised it to about 1000. But with eco cruise range may reach 800 on internal and 1200 with DT (but a somewhat slower speeds). Standard cruise speed with DT was usually a bit lower, not only because of drag and weight of the DT system, to keep the engine on their optimal setting. --Denniss 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See a report here of a captured G-6/U2 with gondola weapons with a range comparison of fast cruise/max range with some allied aircraft. --Denniss 20:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the link, the allied war time report states:
 * range at fast cruise on internal fuel was 450 miles = 725 km, with 300 l drop tank 795 miles = 1280 km
 * range at most economic cruise on internal fuel was 615 miles = 990 km, with 300 l drop tank was 1045 miles = 1680 km
 * so the drop tank increased the range for about 60%, due to more drag.
 * economic power settings are only of theoretical value, of course: they could only be used for frerry flights.
 * Lumino 13:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * re: 'theoretical value only' - nonsense, besides, why would then such criteria apply only to the Bf 109? If you do some research, you`ll find that the figure quoted in most publications as 'range' is referring to the most economical settings on other fighters as well. It`s perfectly reasonable to quote - comparable - economic power ranges for the Bf 109, too. - Kurfürst

Spain
I updated some technical detail to Condor Legion (only a fraction) then came over here to see what existed. Suprisingly the basics on action in Spain dont appear? and what claims to be accurate is half baked or wrong? lol

Anyway for those interested in things called 'factual details' please inspect a very good reference site at The Bf 109 in Spain. The creator of the site has inspected something called BOOKS which can be very useful things. lol weren't type C known as 'Clara'? Who dreamt up "Caesar" ??? nice pictures btw, I believe some are copyviolations Fluffy999 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The name "Cäsar" was taken from the german phonetic aplhabet - i never heard about the name "clara" being used for any version of the Bf 109. Furthermore these nonofficial names just became more widespread with the introduction of the E-Series, that was named "Emil". Another example for the usage of the german phonetic alphabet is the designation of the main armament turrets of battleship "Bismarck": they were named "Anton", "Bruno", "Cäsar" and "Dora". If you want to see a very precise and well investigated article abot the Bf 109, have a look on the german wikipedia (not already finished).

B. Huber

New Picture
Hi,

I uploaded a new picture. I thought that perhaps it was better to have the main, or first picture, with a '109 in Luftwaffe markings rather than Finnish colours as the Luftwaffe was the biggest operator of this aircraft.

Dapi89 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Operators
please add Israel--172.173.163.107 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Israeli aircraft were Avia S-199s. They are included on that page. --MoRsE 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the fact that some early G-6 were used by Regia Aeronautica a bit before the fall of Mussolini Regime.

30 August 2007