The Messerschmitt Me 309; Redundant Beauty 

The tricycle landing gear adds a lot to the affect.

The tail structure looks almost the same. At any rate, it's pure Messerschmitt.

The the tail looks very 262.

As welll as the canopy...but then the nose cone and blades looks similar to a kitty hawk to me too.

@@kyle857 true, but there is a resemblance in the tail, canopy and contours of the upper fuselage.

If I recall correctly the only major airframe component of the spitfire to remain unchanged were the flaps...

Spitfire fans insist it was the same aircraft throughout. Yet almost nothing of the original remained in the later marks

Theseus's air superiority fighter

The 109 got less maneuverable as the war progressed. Because they kept giving it heavier engines without changing the wing area to compensate.

@@riazhassan6570 The fuselage didn't change much. The major change was in the wing.

What a great channel …!

corny hahaha 😅

@@cosmoray9750 Too late. Smedley Butler already warned about the use of the military to further private enterprise goals. The book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" covers the corporate use of our govt. and military through the 70s and partial 80s. US foreign policy has been used from the beginning to further the business interests of the powerful; going all the way back to Commodore Perry attacking the peaceful sovereign nation of Japan in the 1850s. Now it's globalust corporatism . Stateless actors using multiple governments to force their agenda.

@@cosmoray9750 That is ironic seeing he did a lot to strengthen said military industrial complex. Anyway, the fact that pentagon is allowed to keep its 900 billion spending after Afghan and Iraq war were "finished" and no one is protesting the spending should go back to 2000 levels is proof how brainwashed and/or bought US public is. The money should go to some worthwhile cause, not to feed useless leeches like Boeing and other death peddlers.

@@KuK137 The corporate owned "media" never met a war it didn't like.

Eisenhower’s German POW concentration camps in which historians now say over one million died on the low end, makes him unqualified to comment on anything, in a moral sense.

Another one is being built!

I believe the first 262`s were tail draggers , which seems odd to me, as this aicraft was a trike straight from the drawing board ,and they were being developed at the same time . Thank you for the superb video , at 82 i thought i had seen everything . Just shows you can learn something new every day .

I was thinking the landing gear looks like it came off the same drawing pad as the 262. In the 262 had notoriously weak landing gear

Except - they were all out of resources. And time.

Take a closer look at the fuselage and tail.

@@bigguns917 I had a mistake in the comment, I meant to say that I see the 262 in it

I thought P39

Edgar Schmued, chief aerodynamicist on the Mustang, had worked with Messerschmitt early in his career. Fortunately for the Allies, he emigrated to the USA...

On the other hand, if you look for the soviet comments on the P-39, you'll always find nose gear under the "pros". The reason is in case of a tail dragger if any wing gear hit a rut the plane could easily turn over its nose, possibly killing the pilot. (Look up Alexander Klubov, killed in such accident in La-7) In case of nose gear it was safer to taxi, land and take off from all kinds of airfields and the visibility was far better. Well, that's what is mentioned when the pilots compared P-39 to LaGG-3, Yak-1 or MiG-3.

Yet a taildragger will normally lift the tail to level the fuselage to attain takeoff speed and sufficient lift.

During WW2 was the accident rate at ground caused from taildragger landing gear (no visibility forward and loss of controll) was EXTREMLY hight, this explain why some aircrafts was if possible made with tricycle landing gears, in addition first me 262 was taildraggers, but this aircraft did need a very long roll distance to take off, who was significant reduced with the tricycle landing gear

Remind me again what makes someone allowed to call themselves a historian

I believe the nose gear is shared between the two aircraft.

The first 262s were tail sitters

shame they lost

@typo pit : Yes, they were modest in their desires; they wanted only northern Europe, much of Asia, and the Middle East -- for the time being.

A comment from the war vacationers or one of those already defeated at Dunkirk

I thought it looked like a P-63 too.

P39 too!

That nose gear is the shit!

@@greggstrasser5791 yes, I'd say an incumberane.

,not mentioned is the Me 609,a jnteresting design.

They may be get it from Japanese Army capture goody and get the copy of the landing gears

That ignores the high takeoff and landing accident rate with the narrow landing gear with the tail dragger 109. By the way, the Me 262 was known for having nose gear failures.

Except the BMW801 powered ones(atleast until the A9s..as long as those got the engines they were supposed to have), resembled an asthmatic jogger the higher it got^^

​@@NashmanNashthat's just radial engine though, Corsair, bearcat, La-5, La-7, La-9, Yak-3U and Tempest all suffer from this problem, where the engine suffer after reaching 3.500m altitude.

Absolutely my pleasure :)

That can be said with basically every front-line fighter used during WWII, minus the awful landing gear.

@Prime Artemis no, actually that's why the first 190s had the radial engines. Messerschmitt had a lock on the Daimler engines. The later C versions did have the DB 603 before switching to the Junkers Jumo 213 for the D version. Of course the Ta-152 was Tank's masterpiece.

That's true. I'm thinking, of the Me109 and a P51 had a baby. What would she look like? Wow. This is her. the lines, the cuts of all trims cry, " Move" Like, "Move the Fuck out of my way. Dick..." That's my girl...

Yeah. They did that almost every f*ckin' time.

Even if Germany produced their nifty jet fighters 2 years earlier, at best, the war may have lasted another 6 months. They would still loose the war. The Allies were determined to completely crush Germany no matter what.

The Germans just simply ran out of experienced pilots and unlike the Allies did not rotate pilots in order to train new pilots in combat skills, they flew till they were killed. New pilots were put into planes, like the later Fw 190s, that could match performance with the top Allied fighters, but these young inexperienced pilots were just considered a turkey shoot by Allied pilots. The USAAF strategy of attrition of forcing the Luftwaffe to engage in continuous air combat in daylight raids along with hardly any German oil production was the end result. They were virtually bled white.

Quit a few pilots were to have said the F model was the favorite of pilots.

@@michaelhill1357 but still in 1940-41 Reich's air ministry didn't give a damn about new fighter even hittler considered ME-262 as a showoff only in end of 1943 they realised the reality

@@michaelhill1357 they simply lacked man power

It's interesting how the 109 design and FW-190 design switched back and forth as the premier German piston fighter, with the TA-152 being ultimate of the 190 type.

The Me 109 Gustav was nicknamed "the killer" for some reason...!"

Just widening the wing landing gear would have done that, I don't see the reason for the nose gear.

Messerschmitt*

Every plane has strengths and weaknesses. The problem of the engine power had quite a lot to do with fuel.

Basically all WW2 combat aircraft had 40-60% losses to accidents - many to landings and take offs.

To change the landing gear was going to be about equivalent to designing and building a new plane. The gear on both of these planes swing the way they do because they are actually mounted to the fuselage, not the wing. This allowed the wing to be significantly lighter as well as easier and cheaper to produce. This helped make both of these planes capable of being manufactured in the numbers they were at the time. Just moving the gear requires major fuselage, wing, and armament redesigns, MAJOR.

As the war progressed the 109 fell further and further behind the Spitfire.

@@timphillips9954 Irrelevant and wrong but ok

The Jumo was trialled in other prototypes, and although suitably powerful on paper, it had different performance characteristics, producing a "torquey" power delivery. This was suitable for multi-engined designs, where its tendancy to punish airframes and produce horrible torque effect on take-off and heavy load demand situations, could be mitigated by balancing the power delivery. I don't see the Jumo engine being an upgrade on the DB in a single engined fighter application

@@TorquilBletchleySmythe it could be as you say that the Jumo 213E might be more "torquey" also because it is possible that it was due to the engine that was fitted with the enormous paddle blades, generally an issue with all late war fighters, and it is possible that the Jumo engine was more brutal than the DB 603E. Generally speaking the Jumo 213E was very effective and perhaps more reliable and offered more acceleration than the DB 603E. Both the Fw 190-D and the Ta 152H-1 were superb airplanes....

@@paoloviti6156 my thoughts that it would not be suitable are based on the wing area and dimensions and the 109 derived airframe. The Avia S119 used the less powerful Jumo 211F engine with more fighter-friendly blades, and it was still a horrid engine for the Messershmitt based design. I stand by my original statements.

@@TorquilBletchleySmythe I wanted mention the Avia S-199 but I forgot about it when when writing! To start with the Me 109G frames were almost without the DB 605 series because the warehouse full of those engines was blown up forcing the Czechoslovakian to install the Jumo 211F the same engine and propeller of the He 111 bomber. Yet it was the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller that made the Avia S-199 with very dangerous to handle on takeoff and landing. It was not the engine the problem but the paddle-bladed propellers despite having about 1.400 hp compared to the 2,000 hp Jumo 213E..l

Well this fighter does have somewhat resemblance to the Italian Macchi C.202 Folgore

They solved this with water methanol injection.

​@@jeffk464 jawohl

High-Octane Levels allows for more boost it doesn’t explicatively makes your plain faster by itself. There are few others ways that Germans negated such as High Displacement on their engine as well as, GM-1, MW-50 and not to mention VDM Propellers.

There really wasn't that much difference between the two performance wise, the FW190's engine is like the ME109's wherein it only had a single stage supercharger, look at the NACA test reports on them, they started losing power at 17,000 ft, by the time they climbed up to where B17's were flying they were starting to claw for air, and a P47 or a P38 or a mid 42 or later Spitfire with the improved 2 stage supercharger Merlin engine could all perform at higher altitudes giving them a huge edge over the FW190, it's really only the variant's of the FW190 like the Dora with an engine that has a high altitude supercharger that could fight with those planes, otherwise any of those other planes can just start their attack from higher up and just keep pouncing on them, Gabby Gabreski who was the number one P47 ace in Europe said if an FW190 got on his tail all he had to do was corkscrew up to altitude and the FW190 couldn't keep up trying to follow, then he had the altitude to attack it. Really the only thing that the FW190 had over the ME109 that made any kind of real difference was ergonomics, they were easier to fly because of the controls, thing's like the fuel richness being auto coupled into the throttle and the constant speed propeller adjustment being on the end of the throttle handle all made for a plane that was easier to fight in, but the performance number's aren't that far off, the NACA tests show that.

@@dukecraig2402 I appreciate you explaining that to me. The FW still would have been the ideal aircraft for new pilots being rushed into combat, as the Luftwaffe losses mounted. Akin to the Hellcat, and Fokker D7, that was forgiving to fly and made aces out of ordinary piliots. Plus its wide undercarriage made it better to handle rough airstrips.I believe the FW was a much superior gun platform than the 109, able to carry more armament and armor for taking on the B-17's in head on attacks.

@@blank557 Yes it was an ideal plane to put new pilots in between it having what was probably the best ergonomics of any plane of WW2 and it's automatic type of engine management controls, it had to have cut down on training times and given new pilots good confidence. For the life of me I'll never understand why they only had single stage superchargers on the engine's from day one given that they didn't enter service until 1941, by then pretty much everyone was either designing new aircraft with high altitude superchargers on them or converting current production aircraft over to them, the Spitfire is a perfect example, by mid 42 the RAF was starting to field Spitfire's with the 2 stage supercharger Merlin engine's in them, even the P38 Lightning which came out in 1938 had a high altitude type of supercharging system from day one, you'd think that the Germans would have seen the writing on the wall like everyone else did, they may have been a lot of things but stupid wasn't one of them, why the FW always had a single stage supercharger on the original BMW radial engine version I'll never understand, even when they wanted a high altitude version of it instead of just making a 2 stage supercharger for the BMW engine they fit a V type of engine in it, I've never understood that, it certainly would have been a lot easier doing the minimal amount of redesigning to put a slightly larger supercharger on the current engine they had instead of redesigning the whole front end to take an entirely different kind of engine, I'll just never get that.

@@dukecraig2402 Agreed. Don't get how a smart guy like Kurt Tank didn't get that either. I suspect politics and "Good ol boy" corruption was in play in the Third Reich.The armaments industry was never fully nationalized by the Nazis, since no doubt they funded them in the 1930's to throw business their way for the upcoming war. Messerschmidt may have had Goering in his pocket to keep the 109 in production, particularity in the first years of the war when Hitler wanted to keep the German public happy by not going on a war economy to take away their consumer products. I think also the German military industries kept promising Hitler wonder weapons to get funding, resulting in too many projects with limited resources wasted on them.

if we are talking about fighting bombers than the germans should have focused on twin engined 5-5.5cm armed aircraft such as the Me 410, the german's 20mm and 30mm cannons were too short ranged for effective use against bombers in the day, the Me 410 Hornisse proved to be significantly more reliable and resource-efficient at bomber interception. then focused the fighters on intercepting enemy fighter escorts to let the 5cm gunship planes go to town on the bombers.

Lol evidently your eye is better than mine :)

The opposite is true. Aircraft went from canvas biplanes to rockets and jets

... its* details (it's = it is)

Getting high octane fuel was a huge problem for Germany. That wasn’t getting fixed unless the run a blockaid, which tankers are not good at, or the army takes the Russian oil fields. Which Hitler wanted to do, but the German generals thought was a lower priority than taking bombed out Leningrad. Stalingrad, and Moscow.

Germans have rising up their to 120 at the last year's of war

Until '69...! Wow, it was a lightning !

Not my cup of tea either