Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes Join this channel ➤ kzread.info/dron/TTqBgYdkmFogITlPDM0M4A.htmljoin ➤ IG: instagram.com/dronescapesvideos/ ➤ TWITTER (X): tinyurl.com/m86k2ypf

@antoinedunaux

3 ай бұрын

Q😊m

To see 109 flying today is a beautiful thing. Thank you for restoring such a beautiful machine from WWII.

The plane is so small you wouldn’t believe it, when you see it at Duxford it is so thin and small, you go wow

My favorite plane of all time. Whats crazy to me though is that throughout its countless iterations, they never revised the undercarriage design - especially considering how many crashes were directly associated with its design.

@jerryjeromehawkins1712

3 ай бұрын

Years ago, I read a book where they tackled that exact question. Basically, it was never attempted for three reasons: 1) Because the landing carriage design was so integral to the overall design of the fuselage and wings... it would be necessary to redesign too many components to make it worthwhile. 2) The Fw190 was already in production with landing carriage that already addressed this weakness of the 109. 3) The landing carriage/fuselage design made rail transport of the 109 fairly easy.

According to Pierre Closterman de Me 109 K4 was a formidable Fighter ...

The aircraft you show as the FW-190 is actually the TA-152

36:45 Um... the Thunderbolt didn't have 850 caliber MGs... yes, I had to listen twice, but "Eight hundred and fifty caliber" was definitely said. Those would be some *big* guns...

@Not_A_Cat

7 ай бұрын

AI voiced. Must have been a typo that was read out. It has 8× .50in MGs, as we all know.

@michafraszczak120

2 ай бұрын

Like battleship guns.

Your flying tigers feature was superb. Public comments not allowed. Typical U Tube. You miss out on memoirs by refusing casual contributions.

@Dronescapes

7 ай бұрын

That is a livestream loop. You can freely comment on the official video on the channel, which is the same: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mZV-1Nmwf86rmrw.htmlsi=j6sOBexZKM4rKihj Thank you for the kind words

Douglas Bader said, if you had an ME 109 on your tail, you should turn, turn, turn to lose it, he used it frequently & it never failed him. They had heard a rumour about an ME 109 pilot, who had put the plane into a tight turn & it ripped the wings off. German pilot's were scared of doing the same, so wouldn't push the plane to out turn the RAF fighters.

@dr.kroenen2425

5 ай бұрын

Bader😂 isn't he the guy that was shot down and spent the war as a pow in a German camp. He had no legs and was carried around by another prisoner. 😅

@skippytv1956

2 ай бұрын

Your information is wrong & his spare legs were dropped on a bombing raid.

@sule.A

10 күн бұрын

​@@dr.kroenen2425dont disrespect those who saved Europe 😡

@dr.kroenen2425

9 күн бұрын

@@sule.A Bader, isn't he the guy that was shot down at the beginning of the war and spent the majority of the war in a POW camp? Don't know I'd take advise from him. Also, from what I read, he wasn't a very nice guy.

Bravo.perfect

отличный самолет с минимальными потерями на балансировку . Я бы еще добавил корневой наплыв крыла , с передним вортексом и поставил бы современый суперламинарный профиль крыла . И коэффициент сужения крыла уменьшил бы , для увеличения маневренности относительно оси Х. И винтомоторную группу можно пересчитать компьютерами .

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

Nobody had the capability to mass produce laminar flow wings back then, when NACA tested the P51 they made it perfectly clear in their reports that the wings didn't achieve true laminar flow due to production flaws, and American aircraft were notoriously built to a higher standard than German aircraft were during the war, they'd never have been able to achieve it. Even if something like the P51 could have been mass produced with the tolerances for them to have truly laminar flowing wings it probably wouldn't have lasted past the first mission or two, bent wings and rippled panels on them from high G maneuvers would negate the precision needed to truly achieve laminar flow, even bug strikes would do it.

The Spitfire had the same problem with its undercarriage. And the Spitfire had a terrible fuel system!

Excelente avion tremendo cañon, algo pesado

A long time ago, in my childhood, I had a collection of WW2 aircraft models in a 1:72 scale. One of them was a Messerschmitt Me 109 and NOT - Bf 109‼Germans and Soviets designated their aircraft with the first two letters of the constructor bureau, for instance, Ju for Junkers, He for Heinkel, Tu for Tupovlev, Il for Ilushin >>>hence the Me for Messerschmitt. I don't know when and why the abbreviation Me became Bf. Somebody explain to me, please ‼🙏🤨

36:45 So the P-47 had 850 caliber machine guns, eh?

Hans J. Marseilles definitely the biggest chad of the aces. Stacked more bodies than Bob Ross and got more ass than Hughes Heffner

BLACK 6 crashed at an air show :(

too short cruising range

one of those damn things dropped a 500 pound bomb on my dad at Anzio Italy 1944 .i shit you not !

Messerschmitt was almost as much an enemy as Stalin; only he could make a fighter that was more dangerous to its own pilot than the enemy. Because of that dodgy landing gear, more 109's were lost to landing and take-off accidents than to enemy action.

@user-ts3ou3zn9x

7 ай бұрын

не преувеличивай , такое расположение шасси дает преимущество в низком весе конструкции . Вилли гений своего времени .

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

​@@billtackettsr.1860 That's right, they lost about ⅓rd of their ME109's to accidents which is on par with pretty much all other WW2 aircraft. The 8th Air Force also lost ⅓rd of it's aircraft in Europe to accidents, people just don't get that taking off and trying to maintain some kind of a formation while climbing up through clouds is a hairy thing to do along with all the other things they had to do during the war, it took sometimes over an hour to get all the bombers for a mission assembled, they just kept flying around in circles until all had taken off and climbed up to assemble with the others, having that many orbiting around over the airfield with others climbing up and merging in was a dangerous thing to do, climbing up through those clouds trying to stay together and then when you pop out of the clouds possibly having the sun right in your eyes and not knowing exactly where the planes are that've already formed up, that's a recipe for disaster.

@allangibson8494

7 ай бұрын

The fact that the fuselage couldn’t be repaired in the field was an issue too (the fuselage was built from flanged spools that had to be replaced as a unit in a factory alignment jig). The Spitfire used separate stringers and skin plates - heavier but field repairable giving higher availability. The Me209 got a wider gear track and the Me309 got tricycle undercarriage that was also used on the Me262 (exactly the same gear).

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

@@allangibson8494 The ME262 was originally a tail dragger but the swept wings kept air flow from going over the tail and it wouldn't rise up going down the runway, after several attempts the test pilot had to stomp on the brakes after he got it rolling fast to get the tail to rise up so the control surfaces had air flow across them and it'd respond to control inputs for pitch, so they redesigned it with a tricycle landing gear.

@notsureyou

7 ай бұрын

That's a factoid.

Bauchlandung !

Messerschmitt Bf 109, or was it more time under the name ME 109

Say what you want, the Germans had the nicest stuff

Just a quick correction it should be BF 109.

looks like a figther should look :)

It wasn't until after the war that the USA started making great looking aircraft.....due to all the Germans working for them!😅

The angry German guy should be told that it was Britain that developed water - methanol injection.

@skippytv1956

2 ай бұрын

Some of the comments are a tad bitter. England didn't need to copy Germany

Not suitable in this even😢

The story of the Me-109 is one largely of myth and propaganda. One third of all Me-109s built (11,000) were destroyed in take-off and landing accidents. The cockpit was cramped and the canopy vision was poor. It was a good gun platform and had good armament, flight performance was very good in the early years, but after the G model deteriorated. Most of the kills were against much inferior aircraft, especially the Soviet fighters.

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

That's pretty much the average with all WW2 combat aircraft, a full ⅓rd of all 8th Air Force aircraft lost during the war were to accidents, that's just counting when they got over to Europe and not including training accidents in the states. Flying those things was a dangerous business in a war and the dangers came from more than just the enemy, even in peacetime the military is dangerous, since I've been out of the Army in 1986 I've had 3 of the 10 deadliest job's in American history, and I saw more guy's get killed and maimed in the 3 years I was in the peacetime military than in all the years since that I've had those dangerous occupations, OSHA would loose their minds if they had oversight of the military with some of the things we did, but since you can't go driving around through the woods and across a desert with the headlights turned on operating armored vehicles in a war then you can't practice for it with them on in peacetime, that makes driving over cliffs or running over people in sleeping bags that even with night vision goggles look just like brush real easy to do, it's just the nature of the beast.

@allangibson8494

7 ай бұрын

@@dukecraig2402Half of the RAF aircrew died during WW2. The only more dangerous occupation was a U-Boat crewman which had a 75% mortality rate. 25% of British merchant mariners died during WW2 (half the ships flying a British flag were sunk and half the crew on those ships died). The safest combat position was a crewman in a Sherman tank which had a 1% mortality rate (with one fatality per tank destroyed).

@ALA-uv7jq

7 ай бұрын

11000? Where did you get that number, out of your ass? The Spitfire had a narrower undercarriage and also killed 100's of pilots in accidents. Do more research before making dumb comments.

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

@@allangibson8494 Yea, but we're talking about just accidents, that's the thing, I'd lay odds that not submarines or any other combat job in WW2 had a rate of deaths due to accidents as high as airmen, about 33%. There's no way 33% of the submariners, tankers, infantrymen, or anyone else killed were due to mishaps, 75% of German submariners towards the end of the war may have been getting killed but ⅓rd of them wouldn't be due to accidents. And if you're a commanding officer how do you write that letter home to someone's mother? At least when someone was killed due to enemy action you get to tell his mother that her son died bravely fighting the forces of evil but how do you explain an accident to her? It'd be hard enough writing those kinds of letters without having to figure out how to word something like that.

@allangibson8494

7 ай бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 The submarines were very unforgiving too. A lot of them were lost to accidents too - which could be as simple as a broken valve handle. The problem for the U-Boat (and other submarine) crews is they simply went out and never came back. A lot of aircrew are in the same situation (my great uncle died with his crew on his first operational flight - shot down over Tripoli and listed as MIA in 1941 (two of the Wellington crew were buried by the Italian military after they died of burns in the Tripoli war cemetery)). He is simply listed as “lost at sea”.

Yeah... Lucky for American pilots the haven't meet many of Luftwafe experienced pilots cause most of them were killed by "inferior" Soviet pilots...but few of them where enough. Propaganda...someone need education.

Majority of the planes the 109 shot down🪂 were old Two Wing Planes!! The Spitfire started kicking the 109 ass!!! Then once the American P-51 showed up over Berlin s*** hit the fan in Germany!!

@karlkirchweger4190

27 күн бұрын

How many old two wing planes were used in WWII. I am afraid a very small number.

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤..!!!...

The real reason that Germany got their ass kicked. Is because God allowed the British and the Americans to set the laws straight. Karma The concentration camps were a big mortal sin! Germany was doomed after that

I wouldn't be boasting so much about shooting down planes over the Eastern Front, the Soviets Plains sucked they were junk and easy to shoot down.