Play Conflict of Nations https://con.onelink.me/kZW6/4exvww9d and get 13,000 gold and 1 month of premium subscription for free.

19:13 - “don’t want to hit my head on the gunsight so i better expose this giant metal rod instead”

I appreciate the usage of both metric and imperial measurements!

Blue paw print  is an instant click

It's not iconic, it's legendary. The plane holds the most confirmed kills of enemy aircraft to this day at around 20k, possibly over 30k.

Truly one of the best early ww2 planes to ever be created

I understand that the hinge on the canopy was rather fragile and pilots were warned not to let it flop open, but to gently lower it into the open position to prevent springing the hinge. It was rather heavy and could easily slip from the pilot's grasp when doing so.  

I also understand that the 109 was developed from an aircraft with fixed landing gear, which is why the retractable gear mechanism and pivot had to be built into the fuselage rather than the thinner wings. That is why the gear was narrow and splayed outward to try to get it as wide as possible. Superb video, as always!

amazing as always, please do FW 190.

I known the pilots sit on their own parachutes, but i was not aware they sit on the entire fuel tank. I guess it is because of the center of gravity.

I can only imagine how much time and effort you guys have to put in for this level of work

The hollow inverted engine design to accomodate the cannon are just amazing.

It should be noted that Bf 109G-6 pilots often complained about the poor field of vision with the framed canopy. That was the reason why post G-6, the Bf 109G-10 and newer models got the new Erla Haube canopy, which had a vastly superior field of vision. (NOTE: the Erla Haube canopy was often called "Galland Hood" by post-World War II British aviation writers.)

However, the biggest weakness of the Bf 109G-6 was the fact its top speed was only 386 mph with the DB 605A engine. That lower top speed made it particularly vulnerable the P-51B/C/D/K models, the P-47D, and the Spitfire Mk. VIII and later models. P-51 pilots took full advantage of the Bf 109G-6's lower top speed limitation, and as such by the summer of 1944 had pretty much wiped out the most experienced fighter pilots in the Luftwaffe .

7:14 the standard armament consisted of one 20mm MG 151 cannon installed between the cylinder blocks" Should be Cylinder heads. The block is where the rotating assembly is and that is located in the big box above the gun and heads.

"Me 109 was hard/dangerous plane to take off."
- The standard takeoff procedure for 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically to ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full  right rudder, easing it off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though. The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - and told them to forget any horror stories they've been told.  He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems.
- Colonel Pokela also told that most 109 crashed he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating.
- Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind to start it off. But 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. The bad reputation most likely comes from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, and that the veteran pilot would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground.

"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

"The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow / weak undercarriage track."
- Narrow landing gear was not that uncommon at the time - all biplanes also had narrow landing gear. Me 109's undercarriage was connected to the fuselage rather than the wings. This had several reasons. Most importantly the wings were easily and quickly changed if needed, without special preparations or tools. Wings were also one single structure, which made it possible to make them very strong. Because this the plane needed some care when operating. The claim that the narrow undercarriage was a problem is a myth, though. In comparison the undercarriage of Supermarine Spitfire was even narrower - it had its own share of problems from this. Imagine what it was to takeoff and land the Spitfire's carrier version to carriers for example? Especially later marks of Spitfire with enormous amount of installed power were quite a handful to operate. But that is conveniently usually ignored.
- The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.
- The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage. This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. Because this it was easier for a small sideswing to develop into a groundloop or the plane might drift off the runway, if the pilot was not awake. Of course, if the tailwheel was not locked, the tendency would be pronounced and more difficult to counter. As with any plane.
- Contrary to the popular myth, the landing gear could take the plane 'dropping' in from about 8-10 feet.

"The 109 was flown down to the runway at relatively high speed and "wheel" landed: it was to make sure the leading edge slats did not deploy.  Because of the high speed at touchdown, there was more time for something to go wrong during the rollout, and it often did."
- Now that is some science fiction. For example the Finnish Me 109s always did stall landings, because the airfields were mostly very smal. The landings were almost similar to carrier landings - the plane approached field in shallow descending turn, aligning to the runway just seconds before touchdown. By "hanging" in the air at stall speed, with slats open, the plane touched down at minimum speed at three points and the pilot could apply full brakes immediately. 109 had very good brakes and the gear was so forward, that the was no worries about nosing over with full braking. Landing could be made with higher speeds, slats not open, or they could intentionally be "popped" out even in higher speed approach (take notice: pilot did not have direct control on the slats, but he could still force them out by creating right flight condition). "Stall landing" to three points with slats open was the favoured method in Finland though. And don't forget, there was even a carrier version of the Messerchmitt, and you just don't land to carrier at high speeds. Of course these planes didn't actually operate from carrier, they they were built and operated by normal squadrons.
- As a side note, Finnish pilots who visited Germany on war time and saw some of the German training or how the German combat pilots took off and   landed their planes, they were quite horrified. German training in '44 seemed very rough and no 3 points landings was taught to the pilots, who approached with high speeds and came down on two wheels. At that time Germans put as many pilots through the training as possible, and didn't bother to teach the finer things about piloting to the green pilots. The runways were paved and long, so the finesse of "good" landings could be ignored.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Out of all warplanes the ME109 had the most esthetic shape i ever seen. And that edgy canopy improves a real bad-ass look.

What I definitely miss is an explanation of how the machine guns were synchronized with the propeller's rotation. While this technique wasn't new in World War II, it was still a unique feature...

Absolutely fascinating! The level of detail on the Bf-109's internal workings is incredible. I learned so much about its design and operational aspects. A must-watch for any aviation enthusiast.

Dude,  I stopped work for this. Hope you can get into ships as well. Love your content man!

as i remember, there were approximately 36.460 fighter released, and on the second place is our flying tank IL-2, 36.000 machines. btw, dunno about the ME's, but near the end of WW2, only around 2600 IL-2 still remained in the army. this shows the disastering casualties during the War

This is one of my favorite educational videos on YouTube