Japanese Opinion of Me-109
Posted By: Martin <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 February 2001, at 3:31 a.m.
Hi
guys!
I'm skipping through a book by Martin Caidin called: "ME-109 Willy
Messerschmitt's Peerless Fighter" (Caidin owns an early model that he
flies!) Anyway, in the chapter "Luftwaffe Strikes" on page 66 on the
top of the second column of text, it says and I quote: " Two Fighters
(ME-109E-3) that went to Japan had been intended to serve as a basis for
Japanese production of the Me-109E-3 by Kawasaki, but Japanese Pilots held the
Messerschmitt in strong disfavor because of it's high wing loading and what they
considered poor maneuverability".
According
to the book, this was early in 1940. I'm not sure of the exact month that the
Zeros and Oscars replaced the Claudes and Nates, but man, was there anything
that could turn with JAAF or JNAF machines in 1940? Thought you guys may find
this little factoid interesting!
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <denizkaracay@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 12:57 p.m.
Well,
first of all Martin Caidin owns a Bf108 Taifun which is a touring plane and has
nothing to do with Me109 except some superficial similarity in outlook. That
does not mean to discredit him, he is a great writer, one of the few, to get to
the human side of the history.
Anyway,
perhaps IJAAF choice of selecting Ki44 over Me109 is a good one. I think Me 109
would be unsuited to Pacific not least of its landing gear design. Approximately
%5-%10 of all Me109s were lost in accidents due to the landing gear. It would
have been far worse in Pacific. DB601 engine would have given (as later did in
Ki61) a lot of headache.
However,
that does not mean that Me109 is inferior to Japanese planes. In fact, very few
Japanese Fighters had the performance in 1944 equal or better than that of
Bf109F4 of 1942. Japanese were rather late to think about E3 in 1940. They
should have considered or more correctly Germans should have offered new Me109F
to Japanese. But as usual no real support was given by Germany to Japan or vice
versa (Remember Japanese not giving rights to build Ki46 which would have made
difference over the Eastern Front and Atlantic).
I
also think that Japanese way of thinking about air war is not far sighted. Air
war is a three-dimensional space and vertical mumbo-jumbo should also be
considered as "Maneuver". As a matter of fact, turning radius is a
defensive maneuver, MS406 could turn well inside Me109 but it has no chance of
winning a fair engagement because no one will turn with him.
More
importantly than turning radius is instantaneous rate of turn, which is the
degrees you covered in a turn per second. If you have better instantaneous rate
or turn, you can still get a good shot even though radius of your turning circle
is larger.
Anyway,
in a turning fight, both planes will loose altitude so real comparison is hard
to make. But if you are caught from above at a lower speed in a more
maneuverable plane, your chances to get away are still slim.
Spitfire
holds its own against Me109 not due to but besides its good more
maneuverability. This is more obvious in the case of Spitfire Mk V against early
FW190A.
The
successful criteria for a WWII fighter is:
Engine
Power
Power to weight ratio
Armament
Ability to take punishment
Maneuverability (well I don't mean a Gee Bee or Caudron racer be good fighter
though)
and
in that order.
I
think what Japanese needed was a FW190 and Ju88 and production rights for BMW801
nothing else. Well they might get some advise from German Fighter pilots as
well.
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi <hiryu@bigfoot.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 7:56 p.m.
The
IJAAF bought both the 109. Interestingly enough, the IJNAF bought the He112
(which was put down by the IJN pilots for the same reason of poor
maneuverability).
I
am very doubtful about the Kawasaki production of the 109 as I have never read
about that in Japanese sources.
An
interesting episode regarding the Bf109 test in Japan is that when it was tested
against the Ki44 and Ki60 prototypes, the 109 was piloted by a German test pilot
who used the dive and zoom technique. The IJA testing staff promptly replaced
the German pilot with a Japanese pilot because they felt they could not carry on
the evaluation since the German pilot "refused" to dogfight. And the
fact that the Ki44 (which was supposed to be a dive and zoom type plane) could
outmaneuver the 109 is one of the reasons it was adopted.
Posted By: Martin Grant <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 5:21 a.m.
Hi
Phil!
Good
question. I wondered that one too, but Caidin doesn't say. He just says
"Japanese Pilots"....it would be interesting to know if "front
line" combat pilots were allowed to test it, or was it some sort of
"research" team of Aeronautical (sp) Engineers??
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <Mike.Goodwin@iname.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 10:59 a.m.
According
to Francillon, The Ki-44 was selected in preference to the Bf-109, so that would
have been the IJAAF. There may well have been IJNAF interest too, but I don't
know any details.
Posted By: Richard Dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 13 February 2001, at 6:31 p.m.
Japanese
pilots were generally blessed with really docile flying characteristics by their
designers.
But...
as suggested above things are not always as they seem. Don't take every comment
at face value!
RLD
Posted By: Mitch Inkster <shacs007@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 1:26 a.m.
Mitch
Inkster
Posted By: Richard Dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 6:33 p.m.
The
British evaluation of the 109 is pretty well known. If you want the short hand
version try William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich. An early production
Bf 109E-3 (believe this was the version the Japanese evaluated) was evaluated at
Boscombe Down and then sent to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
for detailed testing beginning May 14th, 1940. To make a long story short the
British pilots rated the 109 superior to the Hurricane and Spitfire I
configurations then in current use in virtually every category of performance
except turning circle. The Hurricane was rated superior in low altitude
maneuverability and the Spitfire was considered to have a superior turning
circle, markedly so above 20,000 feet. There is the judgment of the test pilots.
Now
for "the other side of the story" which some folks apparently don't
like to hear. Again, this is NOT my opinion, I'm just quoting.
This
is from a chapter in Ishoven's Messerschmitt Bf 109 at War. The chapter titled
"Fighting the Spitfire" is authored by Erwin Leykauf.
"During
what was later called the Battle of Britain, we flew the Messerschmidt Bf 109E.
The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF
was that the Spitfire was less maneuverable in the rolling plane. With its
shorter wings (2 meters less wingspan) and square-tip wings, the Bf 109 was more
maneuverable and slightly faster." -- He goes on to talk about the Spit
later getting clipped wings and the 109s leading edge flaps. Then: "For us
the more experienced pilots, real maneuvering only started when the slots were
out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who
will tell you a Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I
myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and could always outturn them."
I'm
not suggesting the 109 could outturn ANY of the highly nimble Japanese fighters.
All I'm saying is that it is possible to misjudge the 109s capabilities. Let's
say that's Leykauf's opinion. If it doesn't suit you, blame him. I've never
flown a 109. I'm just the messenger.
RLD
Posted By: Mitch Inkster <shacs007@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 16 February 2001, at 1:13 a.m.
It's
not that no one wants to hear what your sources had to say, it's that proof was
wanted so that some could search for themselves.
Mitch
Posted By: Richard Dunn <rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu>
Date: Friday, 16 February 2001, at 3:28 p.m.
Actually
I think the whole situation may be relatively complicated. The British may have
gotten accurate results under the test protocols they used. They may, however,
have used standards that did not replicate actual, common combat conditions.
That is, entering the turn at maximum speed and not losing height during the
turn may not represent a common combat situation. That's how they measured
turning circle (not sure if other scenarios were used as well). On the other
hand, when the Allies tested the A6M3 against various Allied fighters in
Australia, they apparently went to pains to set up realistic combat situations.
Main
point I wanted to make was don't accept old "truth" at face value.
Keep an open mind and search out the available facts from multiple sources.
You
are correct that pilot quality is probably a bigger factor than most others.
Which maneuvered better the MiG-15 or F-86? The answer: the one that Chuck
Yeager was flying. But when the Allies tested a Ki43-II against a late model
P-40N American pilots with minutes, rather than hours, of Oscar flight
experience could easily outmaneuver the P-40. So sometimes...
Posted By: Mitch Inkster <shacs007@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 11:48 a.m.
Mitch
Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 14 February 2001, at 9:53 a.m.
Do
you have any evidence to back up these comments? The 109E was tested in the UK,
in France, in Japan and in Russia, by experienced test pilots at the national
flight test centers. All of them made much the same comments. It is exceedingly
unlikely that they would not have tested the aircraft to its true limits - after
all the leading edge slots on the 109 were manufactured under a Handley-Page
patent, so they were well understood by everyone.
Obviously
an average squadron pilot would be unable to get the best from a captured
aircraft on which he had little experience - but it is insulting to suggest that
the test pilots could not measure this.
As
an ex-aerodynamicist, it is clear that the 109 used the slats to compensate for
its higher wing loading (especially for the landing), and would have been
totally outclassed in the turning fight without them. With them, it was much
more competitive with the Hurricane and Spitfire, the winner usually being the
better pilot (who would then go home and tell all his friends that "Our a/c
outturns the enemy....") However, the turning fight would rarely be in
completely symmetrical flight, so the 109 suffered from slats coming out on only
one wing, resulting in loss of position. The Spitfire, on the other hand, had a
sharp stall that novice pilots would tend to fight shy off......
The
overall effect however is clear from the years of experience - 109s choose to
fight in the vertical and Hurricanes/Spitfires in the horizontal (until the
Spitfires had enough power to dominate in the vertical too.)
As
the Japanese fighters had lower wing loading and similar power loading to the
109E their superiority in the horizontal is self-evident. They could
out-maneuver the aircraft that could out-maneuver the 109.
Posted By: Martin <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 February 2001, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted By: Martin Grant <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 February 2001, at 5:15 a.m.
Right
you are! I am under the opinion that range and maneuverability was EVERYTHING to
the Japanese Pilots, not that that is a bad thing...they sure were good pilots
w/good planes, but the "Western" designs often tried to meet that with
stability, ruggedness and fire power ...the ME 109 was a great craft. I have a
feeling though, that if one ever tried to "mix it up" as it were with
a Zero in it, that they'd have to resort to superior speed and armament to
"boom and Zoom" as well. Agile JAAF and JNAF craft would no doubt turn
inside a ME-109. Interesting stuff. Thanks for your comments!
Posted By: Tony Williams <autogun@globalnet.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2001, at 1:21 a.m.
The
109 certainly couldn't rely on superior armament to the Zero; in fact, the Bf
109E had virtually the same armament as the version of the Zero in service at
the start of the war (two rifle-calibre guns, two low-velocity 20mm cannon), but
from the 109F onwards there was only one cannon in most versions, whereas the
Zero increased its firepower.
Tony
Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy machine
Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm
Posted By: Martin <mgrant@hei.com>
Date: Monday, 19 February 2001, at 1:52 a.m.
Makes sense to me! YOu know,
another reason why the Me-109, at least the early versions circa "E"
series at least, would not have been suitable for Japanese purposes is it's lack
of range. It has been theorized that the lack of range is what cost Germany the
Battle of Britain. Possibly. At any rate, they could not escort their bombers to
target and back or even to target most times over England. Range was paramount
in the pacific! Thanks for your insight!
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <denizkaracay@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, 19 February 2001, at 8:18 a.m.
Well,
I tell you, if Germans had Zero in the Battle of Britain, their losses might
well be higher. Zero was unsuited to hit and run tactics over Europe as well.
Remember how well done against Japanese formations with crude early warning in
CBI theatre. Over Britain, it would have been worse.
Posted By: Martin
Date: Monday, 19 February 2001, at 8:34 a.m.
Cheers!
Martin