“The Flying Gun” by Skip Holm

          Willy Messerschmitt’s
               Me-109 (Bf-109)

Willy Messerschmitt's Me-109 (Bf.109) fighter had always been an enigma for me.  I had looked at the fighters of WWII and always marveled at the German engineering of this little fighter.  Because of the advanced engineering in components and systems, 20 years ahead of the western world, this German fighter became one of the dominant images of World War II engineering excellence and the best-known fighter of this war.  The use of this fighter by the German 'Luftwaffe' as their mainstay during the epic "Battle of Britain", made the Messerschmitt name a household word throughout the civilized world.  

Although more Me-109's were built than any other combat aircraft of the war, I found it interesting to note that the Me-109 did not have an easy road in becoming a  production aircraft.  It must be a galactic rule that aircraft companies, everywhere in the world, find it easier to design and build their planes than to convince their public that this particular aircraft is the best solution.  Willy Messerschmitt, like Kelly Johnson and others fighter builder icons of this era, also had a funding problem and was about to go out of business but then landed a contract to build a transport aircraft for Romania.  Once this contract was announced with Romania, the long-standing feud between the German government and Willy Messerschmitt was settled, and BFW received a contract for fighter development along with the other well-known companies of Heinkel, Arado and Focke-Wulf.   Of course, the expectation was that Willy Messerschmitt would fail due to lack of experience in high-speed technology and translation of fundamental fighter combat knowledge into aircraft design.

As Messerschmitt's team designed his fighter throughout the summer of 1934, they did what they knew, making use of some proven features from their four-seater Bf108 bug smasher aircraft.  All together, the new technology features put on their new ‘109’ aircraft were revolutionary, to include leading edge slats, slotted flaps, hydraulic speed brakes, hydro-electric auto cooling, trimable stabilator, longitudianal auto-trim with flap extension, zero line gun angle, enclosed cockpit, and single keel structure.   As already stated, these were revolutionary in their day, and were not seen in western aircraft until our F-86 fighters of the Korean War era or later.

Me-109 First Flights

Ironically, two things happened in the fall of 1935, on the first number of flights, that would consistently crop up in the history of the Me-109 aircraft.   The first was that the Me-109 would start life, spend life, and end life with the worlds favorite engine, a Rolls-Royce!  Messerschmitt was unable to obtain one of the new 610 horsepower Junkers Jumo 210 engines, so when the Me-109V1 powered up in September 1935, it was to the sound of a 695 horsepower Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine.  Secondly, after rushing through flight testing, test pilot Knoetsch flew the prototype to the Rechlin Experimental test airport, where he had the first landing incident of this aircraft, the first of many famous-for-landing-problems accidents, and collapsed the undercarriage on arrival. The first landing gear repair was effected, testing was continued, and soon, to the surprise of the other aircraft manufacturers, Messerschmitt was awarded a contract for ten Me-109's.

The history of the Spanish built Me-109s, the Hispano Aviacion HA-112-MIL “Buchon”, began in 1936 when the aircraft came into use in the Spanish Civil War.  Germany’s Condor Legion, flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109B aircraft, flew and fought in support of Franco.  When the war ended, the Germans had field tested their ‘109s’ and the world saw the first of many news releases on this war machine, so much so, that many in the western world regarded the Messerschmitt name synonymous with Germany.

In 1942, the Spanish Government, due to their experience with the Bf-109, contracted with the German Government to purchase Me-109G-2 aircraft, along with a license to manufacture 200 of these aircraft at the Hispano-Aviacion works at Seville.  Nothing happened fast in this deal and it was not until 1944 that final arrangements were made and the delivery started. Twenty-five G airframes were designated for shipment to Spain, along with engines, spares, and tooling to begin manufacture.  Eventually, due to shipment problems getting through the 8^th and 9^th US Army Air Forces, the airframes arrived, but the Daimler-Benz engines did not arrive. 

There are other records that say that forty-five Bf 109B's, (Spanish C-4), 15 Bf 109E's (C-5), 10 Bf 109F's (C-10) and 25 Bf 109G (C-12) airframes were delivered to Spain. These other deliveries may or may not be true, but records agree that 25 airframes arrived.   Delivery of the engines was prevented by Allied air attack, and it became necessary for Hispano technicians to adapt the aircraft to accommodate the home-designed Hispano-Suiza engine.

This first aircraft with the Hispano engine flew on in March 1945, designated HA-1109-J1L. Performance was not sterling and after a year, the -J1L was withdrawn from use in July 1947.  The next product improvement attempt was the HA-1109-K1L, utilizing the French Hispano-Suiza HS-12Z-89 engine of 1,300 hp. This type first flew in May 1951, and about 200 fighter-bombers with this engine were built for the Spanish Air Force. 

In 1953 there appeared a further development that gave us the Me-109s that I have been flying.  This version, designated HA-1109-M1L, was named Buchon, which translates to pigeon.  Now really, would ‘pigeon’ have been in the top-ten name choice for such a great fighter?  The rational for this name was that the under-nose bulge required by the oil-cooler made the aircraft resemble the large breasted Andalusion pigeon.  The Andalusion pigeon!!  I don’t know where the Andalusion pigeon lives, but aren’t there hawks or eagles or vipers there also?  Anyway, the ‘pigeon’ model was built in quantity for the Spanish Air Force, its principal difference from the -K1L being the installation of a new power plant, the 1,400 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-45, driving a four-blade rotol propeller.  With the completion of HA-1112-M1L deliveries, production of the Spanish variants came to an end in late 1956.

Messerschmitt or Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke or Messerschmitt or Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke or Messerschmitt or Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke

What about the designation of Me-109 or Bf-109?  Someone asked me one time which designation I used when talking about the 109.  I replied that I call it what the owners call it, because that insures you keep flying it!  Plus, if you are flying this craft, most of your time is taken up with how it flies and not with what you call it as it flys.  There have been plenty of discussions on the pros and cons of using Bf or Me for the aircraft designation. 

Gerald Balzer’s article in the Winter 1995 Journal used Bf as the only correct designation of the 109.  With that article, numerous folks wrote volumes, making statements, one of which is on my list of favorite comments, from Paradise, CA, quote, “whether Bf is correct or not is entirely irrelevant, and besides, is beside the point”, unquote.  (That has to be a keeper). The accepted designation, for historical purposes, is generally regarded as that which was used during the time period, not what historians think should have been used.  For these airplanes, the only correct historical designation under that definition would be Me-109. 

When Willy Messerschmitt and his team designed the 109 in 1934, the company they worked for was called the Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke, or BFW for short.  Messerschmitt’s first aircraft at BFW was the M-17.  This M series ran as far as the M-37 of 1934, which was the pre-production version of the Bf-108 four-seater aircraft.  Messerschmitt’s next design, of course, was the Bf-109, and out of deference to Messerschmitt’s design genius, the ‘109’ became widely known as the Me-109. 

The argument for using Me is that the designation Bf was not used on all Luftwaffe records, but was the Allied designation for tens of thousands of Allied combat and technical reports.  This argument also quotes German record keeping where they themselves knew this fighter as the Me-109 throughout their culture and the Luftwaffe.

There, now that the designation question is settled, my only other comment is to note that Heinz J. Nowarra, a German historian and prolific author, consistently refers to and unequivocally states that the nimble fighter is a Bf-109, not a Me-109.  He is Mr. Historian of Germany.  He should know!  And that is why, in this country, we call the Bf -109 the Me-109!  What??  OK, Our Dads don’t read German history.  And we do what our Dads do.  And our Dad’s shot down Me-109s.  End of discussion! 

If you do not agree with this hypothesize, another way to analyze this debate is to look at it the way most Americans and most folks in the world would look at it, i.e.; pick the easiest route to the goal.  Our selection in this case was to call the ‘109’ one of two things, either a Messerschmitt or a Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke.  Which would you select?  Duh!

Me-109s in the US

According to the CAF and their reference to Dennis Bergstrom’s Gallant Warbird directory, 31 Buchon airframes exist out of an original production of 264.  Six are airworthy at the present time, 2 in Europe and 4 in the US, the latter being the CAF’s N109ME, Harold Kingsvater’s NX109W, the Cavanaugh Flight Museum’s N109GU, and the Planes of Fame’s NX700E.  Only one Messerschmitt 109 is currently airworthy in the world, “E” model, N81562, formerly owned by David Price of the Santa Monica Museum of Flying, and now owned by Ed Russell in Ontario, Canada.

Over the past 2 years, I have flown Harold’s Me-109 NX109W, and over the past year, I have flown the CAF’s Me-109 N109ME also.  Both of these aircraft had been two of four HA-1112’s that were part of a CAF “Luftwaffe Ghost Squadron”, that was later leased to a production company for the aerial combat scenes in the 1968 movie, “Battle of Britain”.  After the movie, all four of these aircraft returned to Texas, and stayed there until either Harold Kingvater and Dan Lawson moved them for restoration. 

Flight Characteristics

The Me-109 carries its own atmosphere.  People have told me that it appears ominous, sinister, and imposing, but then say that is because it definitely has the fighter look, further stating there is no doubt as to what it would have been used for.  And its reputation precedes it, for any knowledge at all within the aviation world has some reference to the Messerschmitt ‘109’ fighter.  I am reminded of a comment by Paul Koskela, where he says, “All Germans are Messerschmitts!” 

As you walk up to the ‘109’ one is at first struck by the small size of the aircraft, particularly if parked next to a contemporary American fighter. A further look and some explanation of the engineering anomalies present a whole new understanding of this small fighter.  Engineering features, such as leading edge slats, slotted flaps, hydraulic speed brakes, hydro-electric auto cooling, trimable stabilator, longitudianal auto-trim with flap extension, zero line gun angle, enclosed cockpit, and single keel structure were revolutionary in their day.  Matter of fact, they all have been slowly adapted into US fighters, from the F-86 to the newest F-22. 

While new and unusual innovations sound nice for next generation fighters, this grouping of engineering technologies into one airframe, considered risky in most environments, worked exceedingly well, making the Me-109 one of the most notable fighter aircraft in history. 

There have been numerous reports written about the good news and bad news of operating a ‘109’.  And most of these reports reside in discussions about the landing pattern, because that creates the most interest for anybody thinking about flying this machine.  I have heard stories about the 10,000+ landing pattern accidents associated with Luftwaffe flight operations, and these numbers appear possible.  I did not know much about the Me-109 when I started flying it, and that naivety probably contributed to making the aircraft easier to fly.  Being smart about a subject isn’t always the answer!

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company: “To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the ‘109’ and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! “

I have found out some things about flying this great fighter.  It is difficult to fly, but also easy to fly -- both of these opposites can occur on the same task, on different days or simultaneously.  The little fighter has a mind of its own.  If it were a dog or a horse, we would call a trainer to retrain it, to get rid of its bad habits. 

For all the folks that have compared the ‘109’ to any other fighter, they are at first struck by the small size of the aircraft, the type of landing gear, the stance of the aircraft, the warlike cockpit structure, and the small tail feathers.  Undeniably, they also note the fact that this was the formidable war machine of the Luftwaffe, and ultimately gather around the tail, noticing and talking about the number of kills exhibited on the tail. 

Quote from Me-109 observer:  “It's getting dangerously close to going flying now!”

Climbing on board, you are struck by the difficulty of getting onboard, getting into the cockpit, and determining an operational sense of a German designed cockpit.  The first impression of the stock Buchon cockpit in Harold’s ‘109’ is bewilderment due to the handles, wheels, switches, and color-coded lines and switches, but after some time spent understanding the layout, the cockpit becomes straight forward.   The cockpit is small, about the size of a Spitfire or A-4 fighter.  A cockpit check, left to right, starts with co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels on the lower left. The flap wheel is turned to get the flaps from zero to fully down at 40º.  Both the flap and trim wheel can be cranked together.  Next is the trim indication window and the mixture control, both low on the left side.  Directly above this is the tailwheel, lock canopy jettison handle, and throttle quadrant. The throttle quadrant consists of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. The hood jettison lever consists of two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the airflow.  Forward and down, forward of the right knee, is a T shaped handle that is an on-off handle for both fuel and hydraulics. The standard instrument panel is directly forward, with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments, and instruments directly ahead. 

For takeoff, the manual states that take-off flaps is 20 degrees. I once took off with flaps up and that was not a pleasant situation.  I believe in the 20 flap check list item.  Some people say the stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. I don’t like that technique, as you lose all the tail on the ground directional stability, and if you have a cross wind, the tail on the ground is advisable.  I also find it advisable to let the airplane fly itself off, and to consciously not hurry the take-off.  If the aircraft is pulled off too soon, the book says the left wing will not lift, but I have found that the downwind wing may not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and the initial climb is good. Additionally, I always use lots of aileron into the wind on both takeoff, landing, and roll-out.  I hold aileron into the wind until I am sure that the aircraft is in control, for if you see one slat come out asymmetrically, the wing may soon follow, and if a wing ever comes up on takeoff or landing, the excitement is just starting.

Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, in 1939, said, “The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statistics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.”

“The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine”.  I read this in a report, but I have seen no reason to do this in the landing pattern, for the consequence if you are on the ground, is an instant swing to the left.  From experience, I know that there is not sufficient rudder to hold that throttle action, so I do not do that.  My technique on takeoff is to ride right rudder as I advance power.  If I need more left rudder, I simply add power and do not switch rudder application on takeoff.  Because the vertical is small, the rudder is the dominant directional control and a real direction response takes a while when switching from one rudder to the other.  During this rudder switch, the aircraft can be doing a wild Hi-acka maneuver – not a desired experience.  “Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket”. I again read this from a report, prior to flying, but I did not really know what swing or bucket was.  I am even now torn as to whether I want to know.  I grew up on a farm and both swing and bucket were opposites, one good and one bad, so I’m again suspicious that we are in ‘109’ country.  I just know when the power handle is pushed up, the puppy moves out.  The takeoff takes only a few moments, all exciting, and after takeoff, the aircraft is wonderful.  The gear and flaps can be raised while the nose is rotated to about 45 degrees of climb.  This climb can be maintained for some time, which accounts for the high rate to climb that we see in the data.

Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories:  “In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the ‘109’ straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway. On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the ‘109’ swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the ‘109’ dropped on its left wing. This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... “

Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight.  A classic!  And real fighter, ready to rock and roll!  And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below.  The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates.  Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions.  The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily.

Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy.  I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance.  The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G.  Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming.

I find the best description of the Me-109 is to call it a “Flying Gun”.  It almost completely epitomizes the fighter pilot desires and engineering requirements for its designated mission as a 1940s era close-in self-defense fighter.

Dash-1 books state that stalling speeds ‘on the glide’ are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. I have not been able to get stalling speeds that low, and feel that anything below 80 mph in the pattern is quite uncomfortable.  Lowering the flaps causes the ailerons to get heavier and less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment. 

Once back in the pattern, an overhead pitch-out approach is my preference.  The aircraft is clean, so needs to be slowed down considerably prior to getting the flaps cranked down and the gear lowered.  The pattern cockpit work is high, due to the trim/flap wheel requirements.  Pulling both the trim and flap wheels at the same time works well in lowering flaps and re-trimming at the same time. Longitudinally, the airplane is markedly stable, even though the elevator is heavier and more responsive than most single-seat fighters.  At all times, it is important to remember that the rudder is sluggish for small movements.  Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking.  At 90 mph and on final, the power is back almost to idle, and the glide path looks steep.  The view looks good until getting close to the runway, then the entire runway is blanked out, with the runway edges being the guides for landing.  The most obvious point to remember on the rotation-to-landing is to look out both sides of the canopy, for this will keep the aircraft straight for the touchdown.  If the touchdown is not perfectly aligned to the runway, some immediate directional correction is needed, for any delay will only exacerbate the condition and give the pilot more excitement.

Major Gunther Rall, 275 victories: “The ‘109’? That was a dream, the non-plus-ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it.”

Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories:  “In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the ‘109’ straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway.  On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the ‘109’ swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the ‘109’ dropped on its left wing.  This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... In all, I was shot down 15 times....  On one occasion I saw the right wing of my ‘109’ flying right alongside me!  During an attack on a bomber formation, I was hit by an enemy fighter, right in one of the main spar attachment lugs.  Luckily, I was over 2,000 metres high, but even then I only succeeded in getting out of the crazily-spinning machine close to the ground. I crashed against the tailplane, and for the next two weeks I could only walk, bent in two....'

Comparison

The engine installation makes the ‘109’ types look very different.  Because of this difference in appearance, the Buchon has always been compared against the Daimler-Benz engined aircraft, notably the G model ‘109’, and the data below give a good comparison of the two aircraft. 

HA-1112-MIL Buchon

A quick glance at the above comparisons shows the Buchon is faster and lighter, is a hair longer and higher, has more power by about 135 hp, and has similar range at similar speed (assuming the one tank is the same).  One item of interest is the climb rate and the service ceiling of the G model.  The G’s primary purpose was as a close-in air defense fighter, so it was important to get the aircraft to the fight, which in this case was at altitudes of 30 to 40,000 feet.  In talking to the Bf-109 pilot who flew for the Lufwaffe, they stated that they would launch only when they had authentic contacts with the Allied aircraft, and because they knew the fight would be high, they would immediately climb to 35 or 37,000 feet, from which they would attack the bombers. 
 
Quote:  “Track around the canopy though Nine, Eleven and now Twelve O'clock. Rolling out gently and now the specks are becoming objects and I can see wings and start to discern fuselages and engines. We're at five miles and closing at 420 knots and greater than seven miles a minute. Less than 50 seconds to go. There's the '51 escort high and behind the bombers... Good.... they're not a factor for the initial attack, but we will need to worry about them on the egress. 20 seconds and two miles. I've picked my target - the lead ship... I've misjudged the attack slightly, just missed the dead 180 so I've got a slight crosser which is going to foul up my sighting solution. 10 seconds to run... The B-17's light up ! Flashes from all over the airframes and smoke trails streak behind as the gunners let rip and fill the skies with lead. They're out of range buts its still frightening. The lead ship is filling my windscreen and closing rapidly. Now.... Fire ! Two second burst.... flash... flash... flash... HITS ! all in his cockpit and fuselage area... pull slightly on the control column to just clear the port wing, the fin slicing past just by me and roll hard left. More B-17s gyrating round, stop inverted... pull 5 G's, nose down, down, down. Streamers pouring from the wingtips. I've lost the P-51's, I can't see them but I know they'll be after us. I'm out of here vertically down with a windscreen full of ground, rolling as I go to miss any pursuing Mustangs' sighting solutions - straight towards the Fatherland…………  The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown.“
 

| What's New | Biography | Schedule | Aviation Services |
| Speaking and Appearances | Ferry Flights | Flight Tests |
| Engineering Analysis | Merchandise | Contact | Media Inquiries |
| Photo Gallery |