5 Things You Never Knew About the Messerschmitt Bf-109 

They also around that time had television/phone "booths" that people could connect and see others miles away - an early video phone concept - FaceTime, eh deutschland style. :)

The Rolls Royce engine was called the Kestrel. The British had a habit naming their aircraft, and engines, after birds.

@@carlpopkins4 Americans painted pictures of birds on the sides of their planes.

So did the Germans.

Actually, that was a "one off" plane (i.e. the only plane of its type produced). If you get a good look at even the fuzzy pictures of it at certain angles, you can see that it a cruciform tail (with a Vertical Stabilizer & rudder above And BELOW. Also the engine's cooling system was basically dry ice (frozen CO2) and therefor had an extremely short range! In fact very little of it had any real connection to the Bf 109 (the (official) renaming of it to Me 109 didn't come until late in WW2!

You are showing the wrong model and markings of the kingdom of Yugoslavia Messerschmitts. They were equiped with E series. After the capitulation of the kingdom of Yugoslavia the pro axis Indipendent State of Croatia was formed. Their air force was also equiped ed

Most German fighters like the Focke Wulf Fw-190/D-9 commonly had the inverted V-12 engine but not all did, mainly late war aircraft

“Lower Slobovia”! 😆😂🤣

Visibility was equally bad in other contemporary fighters, except perhaps the P-39 and the P-38, which feature tricycle landing gear and therefore a horizontal stance while taxiing. An aircraft that had the same engine as the 109 was the 110, and that didn't feature an upright version instead of the inverted iteration. Therefore, your point about the engine being inverted to facilitate cockpit visibility while taxiing is moot.

It’s one of the dirty little secrets that the Germans were winning the Battle of Britain sortie for sortie in large part because of the maneuvers the fuel injected 109 could perform and the Spitfire 1, with its float carburetor, could not. History could well have been very different had the Germans stuck to purely military targets instead of terror bombing cities. This gave the RAF the breathing room to recoup its losses.

@@ricksunderland1421 exactly, and when the later spitfire got fuel injected engines they got superiority due to better maneuverability

@@NikolajBlinkenbergWilladsen The Spitfire’s lower wing loading made it better in a turning battle. One of the colossally stupid moves made by the Germans (and later the Allies) was to require the fighters to stay close to the bombers. This made the bomber crews feel better, but was actually greatly to the British advantage. This is what Galland was referring to with his famous “I want Spitfires!” comment to Goering.

@Peter Lorimer Bad choice of words, but a burp is a long time in combat. That carburetor certainly saved many a German pilot’s life. 👍

Ground loops were common when the 109's tail wheel wasn't locked & "Miss Shillings Orifice" fixed the Merlin carby problem.

but it was not a good plane. too much pressure per m2 on the wings. therefore it's later versions were not handly enough.

An allied ace (name escapes me) was given the opportunity to fly a capture 109 after the war. "If I had know how poor the visibility out of the 109 was I'd have gotten closer."

@@jeannotschumacher1024 by “handly enough” do you mean later models lacked maneuvering ability when compared to the E? I often wondered if that was the case.

@@jeannotschumacher1024 the earlier versions were state of the art one of the best aircraft if not the best but of course it will be worse than aircraft designed 5 or more years later

@@papadopp3870 I think he means the g versions. The f was as maneuverable if not more than the e I would say as it has a much better air frame and I don’t think the wings made it worse(by that much at least)

In 1948 the RAF PRU Spitfires would have probably been unarmed, Griffon engined, late model Spits. Taking potshots does not mean actually hitting, and shooting down the RAF PRU Spitfires, (which would have been vastly superior aircraft) to the second hand Mark Vs, or Mark IXs the Combatants were using

The Spifires used to overview the Arab V Israeli War in 1948 Would have been the Griffon Engined MarkXIX (Mark19) which in level flight could easily reach 748 KPH (465MPH). The Mark IXs or MarkVs that the combatants were using were WW2 surplus, and couldn’t get anywhere near that rate of speed, not even when they were brand new, and in 1948 they were far from new!

The Israelis also had replaced their 109s with the much preferred Spitfire. To be fair, the 109s they had flew, had been re-engined and underpowered.

From a POW camp in Canada, crossing the frozen St. Lawrence river to the then neutral USA. He returned to Germany in April, only to loose his life about six months later. The Bf.109 F-4 he was flying suffered engine trouble and his body was never found.

Thank you GG. I had heard somewhere of that but I’ve been slow to document it. I had heard similar cases in later model FW190 where the reason for failure was obvious, but the cause was complicated. Last week I receive some copied documents from a Luftwaffe historian living still in Germany. He knows I’m going through yet another airplane type-phase, this time, the 109. He feeds my historical hunger with his access to libraries, museum and occasionally the German Air Force. To your post on the Bf/Me 109 fighter I have questions and a comments (likely, far too many). Do you know if The Bf109 thru the E did showed a tendency to this problem? Had you heard of the Me109F breaking up in flight or of details such as conditions in which it occurred? (Such as airspeed or rpm at which resonance occurred.). Multi engine pilots are trained to synchronize their engines, “tuning” them to sound good, but I don’t think it necessarily was to prevent some kind of dissonant resonance. These documents are quite interesting.I found several communications from Luftwaffe personnel referring to an announcement changing the long time designation of the 109s manufacturer from “Bf” “Beyerische Flugzeugwerks” to Me “Messerschmitt” during the early F model work. In this regard, there is a note from a young non-commissioned officer- I think his job was akin to an air traffic controller. Writing to his friend or co-worker he sardonically states, “So, now they are “M-E”. The ally (pilots) call them that since 1940. Time for us to climb on the train! His friend (probably in the same room during a briefing or meeting, on the same sheet, responds dryly, “Yes, but you and I shall continue to call them ‘109s’ and the 210s, they shall continue as “Scheiße”! Regardless of the performance of their twin engine big brothers or their name, the 109 continues to make high interest. It certainly piqued mine! Thanks for your comment. It too, piqued my curiosity!

@@papadopp3870 I haven't done any deep dives into the Bf-109, and what I know of the problem with the early F model just comes from some internet websites that mentioned this problem and that it got fixed for the later F models. Digging thru German records would seem to be the definitive way to document all aspects of this plane - it doesn't seem that anybody has done this and put it into a book yet. German tank history, on the other hand, has been pretty well documented in a number of books by Spielberger, Jentz, etc, working with original German Army records. It may be that Luftwaffe documents either got destroyed or were just never meticulously compiled to begin with

@Will Rose ..nope...that wasnt it.

I read that too kind of ironic seeing how the got rid of the tail brace on the F

Respect to your father mate. Sound like he was a very capable and brave person, he must have been a joy to spend time with. Laka mu zemlja i vecna slava. Pozdrav iz Beograda.

I find it fascinated by coincidence that the Kestrel went into Bf109s before the War and the RR Merlin went into the CASA versions of the He111 after the war.

The leading edge slats did not introduce any problems in a dog fight, that is just an old wives tale. Granted, the allied test pilots may have flown a incorrectly serviced plane which spawned the slats rumour.

The modern Luftwaffe insisted that leading edge slats must be fitted to their F4 Phantoms.

@@juslitor The leading edge slats certainly did cause problems in a dogfight. The "Allied" pilot Gunther Rall had something to say on the matter.

@@averylittle7350 A malfunction would certainly manifest itself as asymmetrical lift, likewise if out of adjustment. But when working, they would deploy with no drama.

So that's why those hidebound senior officers in Japanese Army Air Corp did not buy the plane at the demonstration. Too hung up on glorious turning fights. Only after the Solomon Campaign that they were either dead or commit a seppuku that they moved away toward energy fighter that sacrifice some turning fights for speed and more cannons.

It was such Spanish aircraft that were used in the excellent film ‘Battle of Britain’.

Since there weren't many DB'S left after WW2, the Spanish used the Merlin in its place.

Spanish also used the Heinkell 111 as well after the war

The Spaniards the HE111 to try to keep their colonies on the African continent.

It was a trade for a force landed 110 night fighter filled up with state of the art eletronics he he. Goring ordered the Swiss to receive 12 brand new Gustavs for the return of the 110, wich the Swiss technicians did, but only after checking every inch of the plane!

("Sgt.J."). "Ha, Ha, ha,ha. ha" A German bomber? Well... That'll teach em. 😜

The swiss air-force had only Bf109E-1 and E-3 and these, 10 E-1 and 50 E-3 were ordered in 1938 and delivered before ww2.

@@felixropke9777 yes. And the G's arrived in 1944

@@LeopardIL2 you are quite right, it wasn't a traditional cash deal

Also the Bf 109 rudder peddle's had like two seperate platform's so that the pilot could raise the position of his leg's to help him G-force tolerance.....not as technically advanced as the F-16....but clearly it's evidence that they had a clue and knew something about Pilot black out and how G-force's caused blood flow issue's....and that the fetal position would help in the recovery of high stressful manoeuvres

The AF later did some studies a found that the reclined seat of the F-16 had negligible to no effect on pilot G-tolerance.

@@mobius7089 can you point me to this study? I’d like to read it.

@@mobius7089 If negligible , then why do they keep making it that way? Or modified the older ones to more straight up seats?

The F-16's include seat is inclined because that was the only way it could fit.

Yeah, that guy was totally rad.

also the Yugo 109s in the vid were later models F and G, not Es.

@@Citadin after '44. 1940/41 was the earlier models.

The IK-2 and IK-3 were there too! and Hawker Fury!

From memory what you are referring to in regards to Automatic engine management, was the Fw190 Yes the 109 had lot's of automatic systems, but the Fw190 had an actual centralised "computer management system" At least from the "F series" onwards the prop pitch was automatic (with manual control option) The Czech built 109's that were sold to the Israelis were junk compared to the original Bf109

This automatic engine management was introduced with the E4 model, not with the G.

@@jurgenebert7668 Right, the RPM and Radiator Control was still in the E-3 but not in the E-4. The FW-190 Antons also had a manual RPM control together with a switchable Automatic RPM but the D-9 and Ta's didn't. In simulated Dogfights I have learned that you lose alot of stability due to the changing torque using the automatic system. That tendency of the FW-190 to start to roll over when in a hard turn can be limitted using the manual option. The only backside of this is that you lose speed quicker. But then flying slow the plane is much more stable than the ever adjusting automatic. This is a torque problem.

Me too. Also Hurricane.

@@hariszark7396 same

Count me in!

Definitely the P-40.

Typhoon

You could do the same with the Hawker Hurricane but that had a much wider landing gear. What Messerschmitt seemed to miss was that even with the wings off your aircraft, it isn't any narrower than the tail planes.

Yes!!! I want to see the less know facts of the Butcher Bird

@@ricardobeltranmonribot3182 Kurt Tank was the best designer and his plane was the best plane of the war, faster and turning inside its opponents.

@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 That I know it already, the FW 190 is my favorite WWII aircraft, to be more specific the FW 190 A4, what I want is actually a well thought video of the this machine, because there are so few, this aircraft as been in the shadows for to long, and deserve it's rigthfull place as one of the best war planes of it's time, had the best roll rate, the best cockpit design, had a better canopi than many aircraft when was introduced in 1941. was easy to learn to fly it, had a better landing gear than the bf 109, had a good engine, and at medium altitude was one of the most feared aircraft, even the DeHavillan mosquito feared at those altitudes, and it's final evolution (from FW 190A to FW 190D to Ta 152 H) was the best high altitude interceptor of the war

@@ricardobeltranmonribot3182 And even the last versions, having replaced the original radial engine with an inline, had the round radiator still.

I'll take some crazy stuka or ju88 story anytime.

You know your history, my friend!

Unfortunate War Thunder do not have old pre WW2 flag or insignija of Jugoslavija state , so I think he use the only one Jugoslavija marking.

@@moxie_ST Good point. He has to go with vids that are available which doesn't detract from the historical content.

Yep I'm fixing this in an upcoming video.

@@TJ3 also re narrate the 1st 13secs.

Adolf Hitler was Austrian not German.

@@swarthyjake4433 ?

@@shanedebarra4986 Its true , you can check it out yourself

@@swarthyjake4433 Yes, I'm aware, thank you... just wondering how it's relevant to the Bf109 ? Or Swiss use of the aircraft?

@@shanedebarra4986 Are you saying that Adolf Hitler isnt relevant ! the demon of the third Reich isnt relevant !my dear Sir , many brave service men (and women) gave their lives for your freedom and you say it isnt relevant.

We clearly could benefit from more peasants!

the only thing you got right is the number 108 is just before 109. the typhoon story is,excuse me, pure Bullshit.please do not write comments without having any clue.please please.

Gerhard Barkhorn told that F-version was the best, it was fast and agile. "You could do anything with Friedrich!" Gustav was fast due to the engine output, but clumsier than Friedrich. Gustavs weaponry with 13 mm MG:s and 20 mm cannon was good.

@@esajuhanirintamaki965 Absolutely. Aber, Emil variant had two MG (2x13mm MG 131) & two cannons. Starting with Friedrich, one cannon was omitted and this armament (one Motokanone - centerline trough prop shaft 20mm MG 151/20 or 30mm 108 Kanone & 2x 13mm MG 131) was kept for all variants till the end of the war. This was remedied somewhat by installing 2x20mm MG 151/20 as underwing gunpods. However, these gunpods did had negative effective on handling (all fighters of both sides, equipped like this were affected - negatively). This was an "upgrade" for Zerstörer missions (bomber destroyer). Naturally, pilots would rather omit this extra firepower, because enemy bombers had a fighter escort and against fighters, they were handicapped in dogfight.

@@justapeasant8949 But Bf109 E-1 had four MG17 (7,9 mm) machine-guns two in the nose and two in wings. E-3 had two MG17 under upper nose cowlings, one MG FF (20 mm) shooting through propeller shaft and two MG FF in the wings. E-4 had no MG:s and had three MG FF (officially), as had the E-7. But it must be remembered that in Luftwaffe field shops many earlier versions were upgraded to compare later versions. It could be seen E-3/4 version with factory plate, in which reads E-1 and it is possible to see in photos version E-4, which had same weaponry as in E-3. Upgrading was made for instance to E-1:s to make them similar as E-3. It can be seen old cockpit canopies and newer canopies in same fighter Staffel (squadron) and 109:s readiness lists still mention E-3s. Wing cannons: Finnish pilots preferred removing these cannons. Cannons were no doubt effective to the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Stormoviks, but with skill was possibe to shoot this brute down. Hits to the Il-2s oil cooler were enough.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👍

yeah I believe he hit the tail when he was bailing out, that would have straight up killed him or knocked him unconscious causing him to not deploy his parachute.

The DB-605 had issues with fires while flying and that is why he died. Had he been able to stay in an F model he would have lived longer.

@@SweetSniper5197 I think his parachute caught on to the tail

That's really bizarre (edit: about the elec. interference). To strange not to be true. Thanks for sharing 💯

That's a really neat fact about the radios,thank you for sharing it,109s were fine machines.

Can we get a source on that last "fact" of yours? 'Cause I'm tempted to call _bull_ on that... If the radio equipment was so succeptable to electronic interference from something as insignificant as a solenoid being used on a different plane kilometers away, would it not be made useless due to interference from onboard electronics, which the 109s and 190s had plenty of, and those in other aircraft that are part of the flight?

@@grimmig13 Sources are numerous, but perhaps the most known one is the memoirs of Colonel Tibor Tobak, a Royal Hungarian Air Force fighter pilot. It's a definitive cult piece among the Hungarian aviation and war history community. Sadly, it has only been published in Hungarian and French. An English translation exists, created by yours truly, but it hasn't been published yet due to copyright issues with the author's family. The original title is "Pumák földön-égen", or "Les pumas rouges" in French, and I borrowed it for the English version, "The Red Pumas".

@@nematolvajkergetok5104 Can You cite some of those other sources? Memoirs are... well, You know - memoirs.

If you want see a precursor of the F20, the T38 trainer is still in use as an adversary at the top gun training center for the US Airforce .

Arrogance and hubris.

Read up on your aviation history. Wikipedia is a good place to get at least a basic overview of the reasons why the Luftwaffe fared as badly as it did during the later stadium of WW2. Fun fact: Wonder Weapons do no necessarily win you a war. Proper preparations and prevention of rivalry within your organisation do.

I agree. The 109 has that rare combination of looking sinister and beautiful all at the same time. I've always been a fan if it's angular lines... the perfect match of form and function.

@@louisavondart9178 Hi, I am planning to kit myself out with a joystick and rudder pedals. My problem is that, as a novice, I am bewildered by the choices available. I was wondering if you could suggest an entry level set up. (and, what's a Trakir?) Thanks, Les.

War sucks

Wow, so amazingly and totally not interesting

Well it's said even though they look the same, they were totally different aircraft. Also the wider track undercarriage of the Hellcat was a major improvement than the narrow track of the Wildcat especially in carrier operations.

@@bogusmogus9551 Thanks for that. I had always assumed it was more evolutionary.

Didn't identical planes also fight for and against Vichy France? including P-36? And Finland? and Switzerland?

​@@alan6832 - - Good point. You reminded me about Switzerland. I was not 100% sure about Finland (and I did not search). I did not know about Vichy France, but it seems that for the latter it was not about Me-109. It would be easy to claim now that the fights between the Me-109's of Romania versus Germany + Hungary were the biggest in numbers, compared with similar events, but I did not search that. There are chances for that: active combat between Germany and Romania was for 9 months, and the Romanian Air Force was not in the first league, but it was one of the strongest in the "second league".

IAR-80/81 were good but the rear fuselage was based on the Polish PZL P.11 and P.24! I read an account by a Romanian ace that said "When we encountered other 109's we soon worked out that if we left them (the Germans) alone, they left us alone..... only if we saw Russians (aircraft or ground forces) would we shoot at them... usually too soon or too late!"... then the Russians demanded that they surrender all German-made aircraft.

@@damienmaynard8892 - - The question is when the Russians asked the Romanians to handle their German made aircraft. There were very intense battles in the weeks following August 23, 1944, and at least in those days, the Romanians extensively used their German made aircraft against the Germans and the Hungarians. I think during the battles in Hungary, the Romanians still had these German planes, but this is to be checked. Yes, the tail of IAR-80 was inspired from the Polish airplanes, and that was to save time. The project was rejected by the Romanian government for at least one year, and then the engineers needed to speed up. The wing of Spitfire was inspired from the wing of Heinkel He 70 Blitz. As engineer, it is not a shame to get inspired from other designs. It is a shame when you copy something 100 percent and you do not add your creativity.

@@FlorinSutu and the He-112 used by the Romanians (and the Spanish) was also based on the He-70. The Hungarians fitted a radial engine to the He-70 (making it the He-170?) which performed even better!

German pilots told that Hurricane was difficult to shoot down: bullets flew through its fabric-clad fuselage, and did no bad damage.

The Me 209 bore no resemblance at all to the Me109 and was build purely as a speed racer to capture the speed record. While it held the office speed record during the war, a modified P-47 cracked 500 miles per hour in 1944, making it faster that the Me209.

@@timerover4633 Not sure where you have this from - officially the Me 209 world record of 755 km/h (from 1939) lasted over 30 yers before it was surpassed by a modified Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (777 km/h in 1969).

@@taunusman3235 I got the data from official Army Air Force tests of the modified P-47. As it was a high altitude, I do not think that it could be viewed as breaking the record, which was set at low altitude.

Actually 412 miles wasn't bad versus the Spitfires 395 and the Hurricane's 505.

@@dianaforman3331 But only 5 minutes of active combat time was a true problem as related by various pilots like Adolph Galland (The First and the Last)

I remember flying these in simulators. I almost always ran low on fuel before running out of ammo with these. The P51 I always ran out of ammo long before running out of gas.

@@wardaddy6002yeah they P51s could fly for long flights one of the main reasons if not the main reason they were used as escorts for bombers too

yes this and the headrest blocking the pilots view to the rear were major flaws in the design. What also makes me sceptical of this video is how the bf109 is hyped up to be the ultimate dogfithing plane while planes from the uk where much more maneuvarable and similar in speed. i always thought the selling point of the 109 was it's high climb rate and performance in dives

@@Muhbautz Yeah spot on, during the Battle of Britain didn't take long to realise that to loose altitude fast & the ME109 lost a lot of its performance because of its clipped wings & if one is on your tail, cork screw vertically as it could not match the manoeuvrability of the Spit or Hurricane.

@@Wolfsschanze99 it was a formidable aircraft in the right hands, but that could be said about anything. Continued upgrades in power made it competitive with newer Allied aircraft but also negatively affected handling, making it harder to fly.

@@msquaretheoriginal Yeah, putting bigger powerplants in these airframes changed the dynamics, allies also had the same problem so development was a constant, when the US entered the War Germans were shocked at the Power US aircraft could turn on at will, it baffled them until they captured an intact aircraft & found the fuel was a really high octane.

@@Muhbautz Dogfight is not necessarily a turn fight.

Interesting

Finland never "went over to the Axis side". Finland was Co-belligerent with Germany against the Soviets, not an ally of Germany. They never fought with against any other countries that were at war with Germany and they kept an open communication link to Churchill. Finland was fighting the Soviets because they invaded Finland and accepted German help with a common enemy. Near the end of the war Finland fought the Germans that refused to leave Finnish soil, so definitely not "on the Axis side".

@@redlock4004 Germans weren't refusing to leave. They were leaving very orderly, following pre-existing plans they had made in case the Soviet Union managed to occupy Finland, and thus Germans would need to withdraw. There was even an agreement between Finns and Germans on how the Germans would leave. Finns did perform some small, restricted moves to make it look like the Finnish army was chasing the German troops out. However, that didn't please Stalin, who wanted an open war. Moscow told Finland that if the Germans aren't driven out as soon as possible by using force, the Soviet Union will send help to do it instead, which would have meant an occupation of Finland by the Red Army. And so the Lappland War began for real, resulting in a lot of unnecessary suffering and destruction.

romanians used the hurricane too

@@herrakaarme yeah…..,Germans weren’t reusing to leave Finland just like trump wasn’t refusing to accept the election results. Nice gaslight.

Even the 108 was advanced for its time. For the record, it was a sport/touring aircraft that could carry four passengers. It was used by the Luftwaffe and other air forces as a personnel transport/liaison aircraft.

@@msquaretheoriginal yep it's sweet looking bird, Kermit Weeks is restoring one.

You are correct about the gear issue up to a point. What made it a handful on landing was the odd "toe in" cant to the main wheels. This came about because Willie Messerschmidt was reluctant to screw up the smooth upper surface of his wing with a couple of bumps that would have been required to accommodate a gear wheel with a straight track. As most airfields of the time were grass it didn't matter all that much because the wheels would just slide on the grass. It proved to be a real challenge on a paved runway with a crosswind and bested even some of its most experienced pilots.

We don’t care for the British engine it was small and relied on 150 octanes to make power it was junk. Db610 made power with 87 and thus had a 30% more power to gain.

The DB 610 was two DB 605's mounted together with a common gear box. It was used in the HE 177 bomber.

Also, it wasn't until the G series that DB 605 was used. The last series to use the DB 605 the K4.

You can thank the criminal British treaty of Versailles for that.

One of multiple reasons I consider the FW 190 in multiple ways superior. Just my humble opinion.

Spitfire had narrow landing gear also. Hurricane did not.

@@patrickgriffitt6551 That issue regarding the landing gear is surprising to me, as it seems obvious that it is a safer superior design to have gear like the FW 190 and or of the Hurricane style. The ME 109 may have been a good plane but that gear!?!?

@@dub2536 I believe the gear was designed that way for the fact stated in the article. It made repairs etc to the wings a great deal easier. Side benefit would have been transportation via Box cars trucks cargo planes and so on.

@@patrickgriffitt6551 OK. ty!

Don't omit the Twin Mustang....I saw one in the flesh (all black gloss finish... bad ass looking!) at Reno NV (Stead) in the mid 80's...sadly if memory serves the gear was retracted with engines running , (in Texas I think) and I'm not sure if it was returned to flight....hmmm maybe I'll dig a little

@@Rhino1277HotRails There is a "Twin Mustang" on display at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio. The concept was (according to the info plaque) that with a greater fuel load and two pilots they could fly longer range missions escorting bombers without fatigue since the pilots could spell each other. And yes, it did look bad ass!

I wonder if cronyizm was not the biggest factor in his death...I mean, German pilots were run into the ground, with no breaks, and command was more afraid of a bad report, than actually losing the war...So I've read.

Marseilles superior can delight in the knowledge that one of the the NAZIS greatest aces was dead

Amen

There was also an incident, later in the war, when the Swiss fought USAAC planes for violating Swiss airspace.

@@tomjustis7237 As if that's not enough, the US deliberately carried out a couple of "punitive" bombing raids against Swiss targets afterwards. Crazy to think of in this day and age, of course, but such was the mentality of a world at war.

Good one. Many variants.

Wow. Little known history. Thanks.

It was Erhard Milch who let Willy Messerschmitt have his own company. Milch was the guy who organized the Luftwaffe and Lufthansa. He had a grudge with Messerschmitt and Heinkel too. The 109 and 110 were suppose to be called Me 109 Me 110 after july 1938 on orders from Reich Ministry. But they were called both in official and unofficial records/reports

The problem here is that a open cockpit at high speeds tend to get the canopy ripped off and also it would shake like crazy on the joints. Also it would be freaking loud and windy inside. They however did fly slow with open cockpit sometimes but not in fights except they forgot or had no time to close it before engagement. It is known that USN fighters had their canopies open on landing and take off but that was a safety thing, because it was quite a problem to open the canopy when under water. Also the canopy frames where much more durable. You can see that especcially in the F-4U Corsair even in the Korea Conflict.

@@WanderfalkeAT I’m not suggesting that is what Spitfire pilots should have done, I’m saying what actual real Spitfire pilots said they did do. Obviously couldn’t do that on a BF-109 as the canopy hinges to the side whereas it slides back on the Spitfire.

The spitfire had a fuel tank in front of the pilot and would cause pilots to be burned severely. It is hard to open any cockpit when your hands are burnt.

Some pilots never fired their guns and some had less than 20 hours flying high performance planes.

And a big reason Germans enjoyed having their guns in the nose, with no converging issues. And cannon in the prop hub.

U Mean The ME-262, That's The German JET Fighter... The 109 Was The BF-109 & The Other German Fighter Was The FW-190...

@@jeffadams9807 yes its model is officially the best 109 but bc of them being made by messerschmitt amongst more western pilots and our way of saying things back then they were very commonly referred to as me109's as well. It's the same plane but it's common to hear someone refer to them as either bf109 or me109.

inverted V-12! essentially a 'dry sump' engine - and it was fuel injected, unlike the carburetored Spitfire

​@@devintaylor8608 the naming confusion is very common in all my books and encyclopedias. you're just as likely to see BF 109 as you are to see me 109. the inverted v engine is actually a fairly common design. the advantage of it is that it allows for more narrow fuselage at the top and the wide parts down where the wing is. it also is why in particular the BF/me 109 had a very cramped cockpit.

They were procured by Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert....

@@Citadin -No kidding!

And first pilots for Israël were former lufftwaffe pilots

…also not in service of a country called “Yugoslav.”

Better than the "George" fighter, ? Interesting. I saw a Japanese cartoon about the "George", and it's encounter with F6F Hellcats, over Japan....As they were defending the Islands....They had already lost. The video shiwed the 'Last stand, to the last' attidude. sad.

@@peterruiz6117 Yes, the KI-84 was the best fighter that Japan made during the war.

A buddy's father gave me his P-38 photo recon squadron's scrap book that was compiled after the war. It included a good number of loose photographs that were classified Top Secret at the time. One showed a Do 335 assembly facility that was bombed earlier and in the process of being cleaned up. They had pulled around 9 or 10 aircraft in various stages of assembly off into a field with the damaged hangers and cratered tarmac in the background. Some looked nearly completed, including two - 2 seat trainers. Three more trainers lacked props and the rest lacked engines and nose gear. The workers must of been used to seeing low flying recon flights since they looked relaxed peering up at the airplane as it flew by.

This means, that 109 was a pure interceptor.

@@esajuhanirintamaki965 Well, not exactly. It was a fighter, But turn fighting was coming out of fashion even in WWI.

Even the Red Baron Manfred von Richtofen preferred zooming and booming. French ace Rene Fonck was enthusiastic user of this tactic too. It worked, Fonck got over 70 aerial victories in WWI. Fokker Triplane however was not so fast, but agile and climbed "like monkey". Albatros biplanes and Fokker DVII suited well for zoom-boom. Sudden surprise was a half victory.

The Germans called it a rotte.

@@carlpopkins4 The pair of planes, yes. Kette was the old 3 planes formation. For those who wouild like to know more, here's an OK place to start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933%E2%80%931945)#Schwarm,_Rotte_and_Kette

All the Jumo-engined 109 variants used two-blade propellers. This includes variants introduced earlier than the D.

Thanks!

Too true. A huge number of those were against the Soviets in the first year of fighting on the Eastern Front. The VVS lost upwards of 70% of their aircraft in 1941, (most of the on the ground.) In the first few days of Operation Barbarossa, Soviet losses totaled over 2000 aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground. It was an incredibly rich target environment for the Luftwaffe. The skies were filled with obsolete aircraft, flown by poorly trained inexperienced pilots. They were easy targets. Another factor often ignored was the sheer number of Bf 109s produced. It was the most produced fighter of the war, with about 34,000 made. That's 50% more than the next most produced fighter, the Spitfire, at close to 23,000.

It is not Germany's problem if countries with inferior military men and matériel choose to oppose her in battle!

@@shahrookhshroff3018 Never said it was. Just adding a plausible explanation that the BF-109 had more kills than any other aircraft. It was in service longer, there more of them and they faced a lot of inferior opponents (both obsolete aircraft and unskilled pilots)

@@shahrookhshroff3018 They were forced to oppose and most were caught on the ground. It is not like they attacked Germany. It is kid of funny that Germany lost two World Wars to the inferior opposition.

@@markgranger9150 Soviet apathy and incompetence ensured that the V - VS WAS "caught on the ground" on the FIRST DAY of the War ... and on several occasions thereafter. It also ensured that the V - VS foolishly kept on launching air raids on Luftwaffe air bases which were often within "binocular - observable distance" from their own, only to face more swift and serious RECIPROCATIONS from the Luftwaffe. But enjoying OVERWHELMING QUANTITATIVE ADVANTAGES OVER ONE'S OPPONENTS is another advantageous aspect of war. This was the war - winning advantage possessed by the Allies, which they enforced with the most bestial brutality!

Yes! Probably because he didn't know about the fact the spitfires were very fragile.

As great as a pilot as Galland was, I think there were a few things that he was incorrect about.

What I was surprised of first finding out the hurricane shot down more german aircraft in the battle for Britain than the spitfire. Copy and paste now. Two superb fighters would bear the brunt of the coming battle. The Hawker Hurricane was regarded as Fighter Command’s “workhorse.” It was teamed with a “thoroughbred,” the Supermarine Spitfire. In July 1940, the RAF had 29 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 squadrons of Spitfires. The Spitfire was one of the greatest fighters of all time. It had been introduced in 1936 but was still around to shoot down a German jet aircraft Me 262 in 1944. It became the symbol of the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was larger and slower, but like the Spitfire, it could turn inside the Bf 109. More than half of the German aircraft destroyed were shot down by Hurricanes. Whenever possible, the RAF had sent Spitfires to fight the Bf 109s and used Hurricanes against German bombers-but the Hurricanes had downed their share of fighters, too.

Hartmann, Rall and others flew various versions for the duration....even led FWs which I find interesting

G wasn't available yet....we could probably sit over quite a few beverages and argue the comparative merits/weaknesses and remain steadfast in our beliefs....Cheers

Agreed! The "Beau" was one of the unsung heroes of the war!

The 109 didn't use wood composites, and the Germans found ways to keep production going, moving into underground mines and other bombproof facilities. The problem was that they were running out of qualified pilots to fly them.

@@msquaretheoriginal really? They didn't use veneered wood that was coated? They weren't making them out of aluminum. I doubt they used steel because of the weight 🤔 I don't think they used fabric as they did in WW I ..but maybe they did 😕 Which leaves wood.. which was very thin veneered wood layered to create a wood composite like modern carbon fiber or kevlar/spectra.

@@davidkamaunu7887 one of the most advanced features of the 109 when it made its debut was its all-metal construction. Aluminum was plentiful in continental Europe, and the Germans were able to draw much of it from their allies and occupied territories.

@@msquaretheoriginal They tried to get Aluminium from Norway... They even sent 1000 slave laborers expressly for the purpose of expanding production facilities from 37.000 Tons to 149.000Tons/year, but luckily, allied bombers flattened the facilities using 1500 bombs in 1943, before production could start. It had also been delayed because the need to build hydro power plants, and you needed a permission from 'NVE'(Norges Vassdrag og Energivesen, /Norwegian Water and Energy resources department) and that took time. Gøring wanted to ignore that but Terboven insisted that it was better to do it by the book, to foster cooperation with the public.

German fighter production was higher at the end of the war than the beginning.

"Small"? And what exactly are you comparing it to? During the Battle of Britain, Me-109 had higher range than any of the single-engine British fighters, including Spitfire and Hurricane. You're not comparing its range to multi-engine bombers, aren't you?

@Ranulf 84 if you did not notice, I was responding to the "Small capacity fuel tank" statement, which is absolutely not true as 109 had a very good range among the single-engine fighters of BoB, and its fuel tank was definitely not small for its class. What part of this do you not agree with?

@@sergeychmelev5270 no, the German fighters. It's a known fact that when the Me 109s crossed the Enlish Channel, the pilots had to look constantly at their fuel indicator, waiting for the red warning light to start flashing before they had timeto turn back to France. They had 20 minutes max to make it.

@@sergeychmelev5270 You. It was small to save weight, a major flaw in it's design.

@@82luft49 name me a single-engine fighter plane from the Battle of Britain era that had a considerably larger fuel tank than 109. There are none. Therefore, it’s not a design flaw.

They did end up sending the Gustav's to Africa.

@@notsureyou I believe so but it was Marseille who was flying an F, he much preferred the E variant I believe

@@SweetSniper5197 Marseille preferred the "F", but was forced to fly the "G"

The Africa Campaign 109 shown here is a G Variant, you can tell by the two Spark Plug Air Scoops above the exhaust stacks.

@@taumelscheibe5948 I never knew the Gustav had a retractable tail wheel. I was of the belief that it only ever had a fixed tail wheel? Edit- a quick read up shows that the early Gustavs did retain the retractable tail wheel, coupled with no main gear wing bulge and the spark scoop, yeah it is a Gustav. My bad. Carry on!

But didn't the Germans suffer higher losses than the Brits in that battle?

@@rcnelson hm, it's more or less equal on the side of plane losses. the battle of britain was given up on the german side due to them not being able to sustain the losses of planes and pilots. Apart from that, yes most ppl agree that the spitfire is a supirior fighter and the engine was also replaced with a fule injection system in later models so the diving away trick did not work for long against britain.

@@rcnelson Britian out produced Germany more or less... They had more Spitfires and Hurricanes by the end of the BoB than before it started. Germany couldn't handle the losses the same way and weren't being supported by American fighters and pilots like Britian. They also needed to carry more fuel than England who weren't taking off and travelling acrosss the English channel. The Attack fairly successful in the numbers of English planes shot down, but it completely failed in taking out Britain's RAF. That Battle was much less significant than people give it credit for... A massive majority of Germany's war effort was exhausted against Russia on the Eastern front, not the WestFront

I don't think the 109 was inferior... The model used to travel across the English channel (109E3 mainly) perhaps wasn't the best example... But when it was England in Europe and Germany not having to travel across the Channel, the Germans switched over to the 109F models and maintained 2 kills to every loss... Bu the time the Fw190 came out, England had no hope of making a superior plane... The spitfires after ww2 are better... and The later Merlin Mk9 spitfires were as good as a 109F/G again... But it was really putting that engine into other planes like the P40F or the P51D mustangs that made a big difference (that and sheer numbers). The 109 remained an effective Jager until the end of the war mostly due to good cannons and a great Engine in the DB605's... The spitfire had a better airframe overall (not so much for climbing but for a good climbrate while maintaining a good turn rate) and when Germany put the Daimler Benz into the spitfire frame, they made a plane that was faster and better at climbing than both the spitfires and the Bf109s, essentially showing the spitfire had the better airframe but a worse engine, and Bf109 had the better engine but a worse platform. I personally prefer the flight characteristics of the Bf109 and reliability of the Bf109s engine over the smooth feeling of the spitfire, mainly due to better energy retention and the better ability to swoop in vertical manovours. If it were a 10 must scoring system, then id give the Bf109 a 10 and the Spitfire a 9... But other pilots may feel it goes the other way depending on the sim and their characteristics as a pilot

@@rcnelson From 13th August to 6th September the Luftwaffe; mainly attacking airfields in the South East of England, lost 629 aircraft while the RAF lost 385.