A good read indeed, thank you Dowly. :salute:
The article does point out the weaknesses of the 109 as seen from the perspective of a traditionally RAF or US pilot, in particular the high work load for the pilot in terms of maintaining prop pitch and the work involved in flap control. Compared to the Spitfire where you have a constant speed prop which alternates between fine and coarse and the flaps just go up and down and are hydraulically powered. Of course, this gives you more fine control over the 109 than it does the Spitfire, but when you're having to keep one eye on the sky for the enemy it's one more distraction than you need.
Then there's the cockpit which is tight to the point of making it difficult to bail out in an emergency, many 109 pilots preferred to roll upside down before jumping IIRC, which had the added advantage of hopefully getting you clear of the tail, something which Hans-Joachim Marseille alas did not.
And then there's THAT undercarriage...which I think we've all had an experience with. Made of glass and angled all wrong, useful for maintenence but bad for landing. Although she's not as light on her feet as the Spitfire which often needed two fitters to sit on the tail whilst taxi-ing to prevent her from lifting.
But with all those problems, she was still able to fight the Spitfire on equal footing, and outperform her in many situations, particularly in terms of engine energy. It gives you some inkling of the skill of the pilots and the machine when put together.
Reminds me of the old quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg
EDIT: ROFLMAO, yes, well posted Dowly. |
