# Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943



## Bronc (Oct 24, 2009)

(To make this question/topic digestible for one and all, we must ignore the moral and ethical considerations of assisting the Nazi effort. Also, the Manhattan Project does not exist so WW II is not necessarily going to be over in August, 1945.)

You are transported via time machine back to January 1943 as a consultant for the Luftwaffe/RLM. Because the moral and ethical questions of assisting the Luftwaffe no longer exist, you have agreed to help and give it your best shot.

The first issue you are asked to address is the Bf-109. (Ending its construction and converting production over to the FW-190 or Me-262 has been rejected out of hand by Adolf Hitler. You can do anything else, you will have the complete cooperation of Milch/Speer, you just can't cancel it.) 

Beginning in January 1943, what do you do to make the Bf-109 more competitive in the fighter and anti-bomber missions? (Because you know what's coming in 1944 and '45.)

Does your answer change if you arrive in January, 1942?

Bronc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2009)

Bronc said:


> (
> Beginning in January 1943, what do you do to make the Bf-109 more competitive in the fighter and anti-bomber missions? (Because you know what's coming in 1944 and '45.)



Kill it and build more FW 190s and Me 262s.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 25, 2009)

Convert to an underground production system...disperse sub-component assemblies, like what was done with the FW190 production...protect qualified factory workers, and provide for them. Keep quality control as high as possible, and keep away from "forced labor"...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2009)

Produce the 109-H:

Messerschmitt Bf 109H

It had firepower, speed range Luftwaffe neded.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 25, 2009)

First, I would insist that all Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 (sans the folding wings and tail hook.) The design work was complete in early-autumn 1942.

The Me-155 was identical in the fuselage as the G-1 variant. However it had a completely new wing that featured a wide-tracked INWARD retracting, long stroke landing gear, larger wheels, plus a span increase of 4 feet. Also, the wing was thick enough to hold the Mg 151/20.

A HUGE percentage of Bf-109 loss and damage was due to landing and take-off accidents from the narrow
tracked undercarriage and the wing loading/structural issues of the old wing would have been solved as well.

The Me-155 called for the DB-628 with MW-50. The new wing and increased perfomance would have resulted in a 425+ mph aircraft.

I would have given the aircraft a Galland canopy with a requirement for a bubble canopy within a year.

I would have given it a K series tail in metal.

I would have built it in two variants: The anti-bomber armed with a single (weight-reduced) Mk-103 30mm cannon in a motor mounting. I would have moved that fire-wall and/or motor mounts to make it fit. The pure fighter would have been armed with three 20mm cannon.

I would have mandated that a/the 1000 rpm / 3000 fps 25mm Mk-213 revolver cannon be in series production within in six months or everyone gets shot. After the revolver cannon came on, everything would have converted over to one 25mm.

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Oct 25, 2009)

A good-looking, fine-performing aircraft that was available in 1943!! Even without the Mk-213,
it would have been a dangerous opponent. Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 25, 2009)

I agree with this solution but we need a bit more refinement. 

The wonder weapon R4/M Orkan ("Hurricane")
Put the R4/M folding fin rocket into mass production. The Me-155 will come standard with connections for a discardable rack of 14 rockets under each wing. Produce at least 1,000 Me-155s per month and R4/M rockets by the millions. These dirt cheap fighter aircraft can handle the entire daylight air superiority mission.

Now you can forego production of the Fw-190A and instead produce lots of Fw-190Fs for CAS. The R4/M works well in that role also. Furthermore the Me-410 light bombers can do what they were designed for instead of being pressed into service as bomber killers. Landser will leap for joy when they start receiving tactical air support just like their American and British opponents.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 26, 2009)

While I agree with this modification. (side note- never even heard of the Me 155, love it!!!) My main concern would be produce it, as is. That thing has to have more range right??? Tactics! Let the current Me 109 and Fw 190 continue to fight the allied bombers. The Luftwaffe HAS to go back on the offensive and strike England. With fighters ( the Me 155) that can escort the bombers all the way to the target, take on the enemy, and fly back, thats a war winner. alah- Mustang!


----------



## Bronc (Oct 26, 2009)

The R4M would have been an even more wicked surprise to 8th Air Force bomber crews in late 1943 than in April '45.

Now several major questions: Everyone has seen that famous photograph of the outline of a B-17 painted on a German hanger and the Germans had 8-10 flyable B-17's, but beyond brief mentions of the Wulf Hound "touring bases to acquaint German pilots with the B-17" did the Luftwaffe actually get "hands-on" training (in the air) to successfully attack the B-17 and B-24 bomber formations?

Did German fighter pilots circa January 1943 ever get a chance to shoot at towed aerial targets?

Did German fighter pilots ever get a chance to mock attack a box formation of He-177's to get
their timing, distances and angles down?

Were German ground-crews extra careful about keeping guns and cannons sighted in?

Does anyone have insights on these important questions?

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

This is directly related to fuel availability. By 1943 it's too late for large increases in synthetic fuel production. However it's not too late to protect existing synthetic fuel plants from being attacked by RAF Bomber Command.

Perhaps some of the Me-410s should be used for intruder missions against RAF Bomber Command. That should help.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 26, 2009)

I still think its all moot as long as Bomber command is hammering away at the industrial complex...if you can't keep fighter production high (along with quality), it don't mean anything. How many RLM projects where changed, canceled and compromised by production losses?


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany did not run out of aircraft. They produced over 35,000 during 1944, as many as 1942 and 1943 combined. As for fighters, they averaged over 1,000 Me-109s and over 600 Fw-190s per month during 1944.

The problem was fuel. The bottom fell out when the synthetic fuel plants were bombed during 1944. After 5 years of trying RAF Bomber Command finally managed to make a serious contribution to the allied war effort. Perhaps Germany was lulled into a false sense of security by the bombing failures of 1939 to 1943.


----------



## renrich (Oct 26, 2009)

Jack up a new airplane under it which does not need gasoline.


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

That's what the Volksjäger program of 10 September 1944 was all about. 

However if January 1943 is our starting point I think steps can be taken to to protect the synthetic fuel plants from bomb damage.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 26, 2009)

Bronc said:


> First, I would insist that all Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 (sans the folding wings and tail hook.) The design work was complete in early-autumn 1942.
> 
> The Me-155 was identical in the fuselage as the G-1 variant. However it had a completely new wing that featured a wide-tracked INWARD retracting, long stroke landing gear, larger wheels, plus a span increase of 4 feet. Also, the wing was thick enough to hold the Mg 151/20.
> 
> ...


Huge percentage? That's the kinda bull you find on the internet. 

Bf 109H suffered from wing flutter and instability and was cancelled. Too bad, it could have been great.

Me 155? The DB 628 resulted in a change in centre of gravity and extensive changes were needed, essentially leading to a new aircraft, the BV 155. So you can easily scrap that of your list. Again ... too bad, it might have been awesome.

MG 213? That's going to take at least two more years to get it ready for production. The Germans invested a lot of time and money in the project and in the end had nothing to show for it. 

R4M is also far from production in January 1943. Even if they speed it up it would take at least one more year for operational testing.

It's better to keep it simple guys.

In January 1943 the Bf 109G-5/6 was on its way so let's start from there. 
Its main problem was the aerodynamical picture. They were partially solved at the end of 1944. These changes could possibly have been introduced much sooner. An aerodynamical hood instead of the bulges. A retractable tail wheel with a long strut. 
One more option is adding wheel bay covers which would make the aircraft substantially faster.

Another main shortcoming was the 1.3 ata level of the DB 605. Daimler Benz should make it priority nr 1 to at least bring the ata level back to the level of the DB 601.

These simple changes would bring the max speed of the Bf 109G to at least 670 kmh. Also range would be improved. 

Other changes are the Erla Haube and the standard fitting of the cheap MK 108 cannon.

Kris

and Bronc, use the standard font please


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2009)

Why does the Me-155 need the DB628 engine? Just use the same DB605 engines which historically powered the Me-109G and Me-109K.


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 26, 2009)

Civettone said:


> MG 213? That's going to take at least two more years to get it ready for production. The Germans invested a lot of time and money in the project and in the end had nothing to show for it.
> 
> Kris
> 
> and Bronc, use the standard font please



I just wanted to augment Kris's MG 213 comment with that a few months ago I corresponded with Tony Williams, the air armament expert, about it and he stated that by WWII's end, the MG 213 was not still nearly ready for production.

PG


----------



## Bronc (Oct 26, 2009)

HeY Civettone:

Since when does an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605 change the center of gravity to anything? That's what the DB-628 was: an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605.

Put a DB-603A on it and maybe...

As to the catastrophic effects of the Bf-109's undercarriage, the narrowness of it leading to about 50% of ALL accidents causing unserviceability, I can find the cite for you. I mean, I can embarrass you completely and thoughoughly on the list over this, or maybe I will let it drop to be nice to you and all, but I guess it's up to you dude...

As to the Mk-213, I guess we don't get to use it. However, if I'm going to be a time-travelling consultant for the Luftwaffe, my advice would be to start shooting people just like Stalin did.* Stalin didn't have to put up with long development and production delays when it came to weapons.* First you got a letter urging you (and the team) to hurry up. Then you got a letter warning you to hurry up. And when you didn't hurry up and deliver then you, and everyone that even remotely looked like you, got shot.

Shoot about half the RLM and a couple of arbitrarily and capriciously picked people from Jumo, DB, BMW and you want really powerful engines with advanced features in production now? WE HAVE THEM. We DO. WE REALLY DO! Can you imagine Willie Messerschmitt pulling all that nonsense on Stalin? Ain't no way. Not in a million years. For the mass-murdering idiot that he was, Hitler had a lot to learn about motivating people from an expert, that is, Joe "I will kill your entire village" Stalin.

Bronc

BTW: What's wrong with this?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2009)

Bronc said:


> Shoot about half the RLM and a couple of arbitrarily and capriciously picked people from Jumo, DB, BMW and you want really powerful engines with advanced features in production now? WE HAVE THEM. We DO. WE REALLY DO! Can you imagine Willie Messerschmitt pulling all that nonsense on Stalin? Ain't no way. Not in a million years. For the mass-murdering idiot that he was, Hitler had a lot to learn about motivating people from an expert, that is, Joe "I will kill your entire village" Stalin.




That was hillarious


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Oct 26, 2009)

I would suggest that it's not just about shooting people - it's shooting the RIGHT people. 

And to do that, you have to be a cold-blooded, unsentimental son of a bitch like Iosif 'Koba' Dzugashvili. 

Now the RIGHT people to have shot would be Goering, Milch, and a lot of the top bureaucrats in the RLM.

But with the sentimental, emo-Goth Hitler he would have passed them all over and shot...Kurt Tank instead!

Even Stalin got it wrong before 1942 and shot a lot of the wrong people - and imprisoned many wrong ones, too. Look at the great Russian engineers and designers who were working out of prison in WW II!

A common fallacy is that the Russians won WWII BECAUSE of Stalin. I would submit that there is equally as much evidence that the Russians won WW II DESPITE Stalin.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm laughing so hard I can barely type, but honest to God, that's EXACTLY what would have happened: Adolf Hitler would have gotten all confused and shot Kurt Tank and the folks at Focke Wulf!

But seriously, how "the fat man" Goring avoided a firing squad in 1940 is absolutely beyond me. I can't remember the name of the Luftwaffe's Chief of Intelligence _(Ic)_ during the Battle of Britain, wasn't it _Oberst_ Joseph Schmid, good old _Beppo._ Anyway I would have shot THAT guy twice and he became a Major General(dramatically under-estimating the Soviet Union's pre-Barbarossa military strength and aircraft manufacturing potential and commanding the Herman Goring Division along the way.)

Bronc


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> A common fallacy is that the Russians won WWII BECAUSE of Stalin. I would submit that there is equally as much evidence that the Russians won WW II DESPITE Stalin.



If there ever was a statement so dam true, it would be this one!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 26, 2009)

Bronc said:


> HeY Civettone:
> 
> Since when does an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605 change the center of gravity to anything? That's what the DB-628 was: an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605.


I have seen the drawings of the Bf 109 with DB 628 and it required a couple of changes. Which then resulted in another change, and then another and another and ... and it ended up as the BV 155. The guys at B&V concluded that the Messerschmitt design was seriously flawed and needed much more changes. 




Bronc said:


> As to the catastrophic effects of the Bf-109's undercarriage, the narrowness of it leading to about 50% of ALL accidents causing unserviceability, I can find the cite for you. I mean, I can embarrass you completely and thoughoughly on the list over this, or maybe I will let it drop to be nice to you and all, but I guess it's up to you dude...


Go for it!




davebender said:


> Why does the Me-155 need the DB628 engine? Just use the same DB605 engines which historically powered the Me-109G and Me-109K.


So what do you get then? A standard Bf 109 with bigger wings? That's pretty much taking away its main advantage. The aircraft will be slower, have lesser roll rate and will be inferior in the vertical. Climb rate will only be better in a sustained climb but not in instant climbs which were far more important in combat. And all of that for some more armament and a wider landing gear.

Kris


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 27, 2009)

I really think everyone is missing the point. What killed the Luftwaffe was thier total lack of offensive cabability.

If they could, by means of better fighter escort, go on strong offensive of attacking England proper, everything changes.

The British and U.S, rather than spending all of thier time, efforts, thoughts, and equipment on attacking the Germans, now have to also figure out how to defend. Possibly move airfields further away, which would again be advantageous to the Luftwaffe.

We can talk about which plane is faster, better, whatever. But if the Germans could put together an effective strategic bombing campaign, the whole war is changed. At least against the British and Americans.

I am not so sure the existance of a longer range fighter escort would help them against the Russians. I think the Russians could just keep moving thier production East as they did during the war.


----------



## Hop (Oct 27, 2009)

The Germans simply didn't have the numbers for a strategic bombing campaign against Britain after 1941. 

If you look at July 1943 as an example, the RAF had, in the UK, excluding reserves:

960 heavy bombers
1500 SE fighters
570 TE fighters
approx 400 medium and light bombers

The entire Luftwaffe, deployed not just in W Europe but also in the Med and East, had just 1,849 fighters of all types and 1,663 bombers. The RAF based in the UK was larger than the entire Luftwaffe.

As to making changes to the 109 in 1943, it was all too late. As Williamson Murray says in Strategy for Defeat:



> Unfortunately for Trautloff and Germany's cities, there was no method that could
> produce enough machines or pilots ; the battle for air superiority was lost because
> the battle of production had been lost in 1940, 1941, and 1942-not 1944 .


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 27, 2009)

Civettone said:


> It's better to keep it simple guys.
> 
> In January 1943 the Bf 109G-5/6 was on its way so let's start from there.
> Its main problem was the aerodynamical picture. They were partially solved at the end of 1944. These changes could possibly have been introduced much sooner. An aerodynamical hood instead of the bulges. A retractable tail wheel with a long strut.
> ...



Good post, Civettone, and I agree completely.

Introducing new types is not easy, both production and operational-wise, and I think many underestimate the problems involved. The thesis of this thread is that the Germans know what is coming at them in 1944, so they have a year to try to come up with a solution for this.

Regarding the aerodynamic changes, these were quite simple, and ready to be implemented by mid-1943 the latest. The streamlined cowling was ready, the retractable tailwheel and the wheel well doors (the latter actually already proposed before the Bf 109G, hence the squarish wheel bays) were known. Priority should have been given to fix some of the minor mechanical problems with these improrements, which alone would yield some 20-30 km/h speed increase.

I guess you could not do anything about the DB 605A, DB had a hand on the lubrication problems, and solved these completely between June and September 1943. Since the problem was the engine's mechanical endurance, until the lubrication problem was solved, MW 50 boosting is not possible (since the engine cannot yet take these loads).

I don't think the complete replacement of the 109G with FW 190A is a good solution, for two reasons: 109s could be produced in 2/3rd the time that it took to produce a FW 190.

Secondly, since the RLM knows that for 1944, requirements will be to for fighting at higher altitudes, ca 8km against American bomber streams, they will require a good performance high altitude fighter, which the FW 190 cannot fill, even with the FW 190D with its medium altitude engine.

So IMHO the correct decision would be:

- Priority for aerodynamic improvements for Bf 109G, introducing these on all present aircraft before waiting for the Bf 109K (whichs development BTW started in early 1943, so kinda mirrors it. The failing was the lacking of energetic introduction of these developments into production sooner)

- Most importantly, since we know that the 1944 fights will be about fighting at high altitude, cease production of DB 605A engined Bf 109Gs and produce only fighters with the DB 605AS. This is easily done since in effect it only means fitting existing DB 605A's with a DB 603 supercharger and results in a fighter that is comparable if not superior to any known foreign types at altitude.

- Cancel Me 410 production alltogether. This plane is simply not needed, and its roles can be fullfilled by other types, namely the Ju 88/188. The surplus production capacity at Mtt can be used to produce more 109s, and the surplus DB 603A engines to produce a FW 190D equivalent with the DB 603A (note that DB 603A and Jumo 213 were both interchangable, and of very simimilar output).

- Cancel He 111 production, the type should be replaced by Ju 88. Its a superflous type, as again the Ju 88 can fullfill any of its roles, as well as useful as a night fighter airframe.


Regardless of all the above, by far the most important task would be a large scale expansion of the training programme, which was of far greater concern to the Germans - who never really had a lack of available aircraft - than the lack of pilots. 

Simply to put, IF we know that 1944 will be about large defensive fights (and this was not too hard to predict by 1943, with the USAAF starting to deploy in Europe, and giving an edge to the Allied air offensive, which was _until then_ rightfully ignored due to the rather impotent nature of RAF 'probing raids' _in France_.) the correct strategic decision should have been drawn in 1943, and to tailor the production and the Luftwaffe force to a defensive nature. Fighter production should have received priority, as well as fighter training programmes, instead of waiting with all that until mid-1944.

IMHO there was a fairly good chance to reverse or at least, largely mitigate the devastating air superiority that the USAAF have won, albeit at a great cost in the spring of 1944, largely due to insufficient German fighter forces in the West. That was simply an air war of attrition, and the Luftwaffe, not having sufficient fighters to maintain air superiority on all three fronts, lost the numbers game. With sufficient number of fighters and fighter pilots, they had a fairly good chance to make these offensives so costly that their effects would be largely reduced, either over the Reich or over the battlefields of Normandy. Of course damage would be still done, but given the peaking out of the armament industry in 1944, it would be probably tolerable for them.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 27, 2009)

Hop said:


> The Germans simply didn't have the numbers for a strategic bombing campaign against Britain after 1941.
> 
> If you look at July 1943 as an example, the RAF had, in the UK, excluding reserves:
> 
> ...



Source...? What units do these include, first line or second line or both? 
What about servicibility rates?



> The entire Luftwaffe, deployed not just in W Europe but also in the Med and East, had just 1,849 fighters of all types and 1,663 bombers. The RAF based in the UK was larger than the entire Luftwaffe.



Your figures seem to be largely incomplete on the Luftwaffe side. 

As of 30 June 1943, the Luftwaffe had 
1849 SE fighters (vs 1500 RAF fighters, which were largely composed of obsolate types btw), 
554 night fighters (vs ca 570 RAF TE fighters, again mostly obsolate types), 
1663 level bombers and 523 dive bombers and attack aircraft, ie. a total ca 2186 bomber types vs some 1300 RAF heavy, medium and light bombers. 

Take note that several types are not included, ie. _daylight _Zestorer units, which had about 150 heavy fighters at this point.

The complete_ first line_ strenght of the Luftwaffe as of that date, not counting a large array of secondsry purpose planes (ie. liason, transport etc.) at this date was 7089 aircradft, not including secondary and reserve units. According to your data, the RAF at this point had about 3430 similiar combat types...

A more complete view on Luftwaffe strenght can be gleaned from the RLM strenght reports. These, as of July 1943, show the following strenght (both 1st and 2nd line units, but not including reserves):

Recon 1237
Bomber 2579
Stuka&Schlacht 975
Transport 908

Zerstörer (daylight TE F) 160
Nachtjagd 688
Tagjagd (daylight SEF) 2018

Grandtotal: 8565, incl. 2nd line units


----------



## Bug_racer (Oct 27, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> I guess you could not do anything about the DB 605A, DB had a hand on the lubrication problems, and solved these completely between June and September 1943. Since the problem was the engine's mechanical endurance, until the lubrication problem was solved, MW 50 boosting is not possible (since the engine cannot yet take these loads).



Just to clarify . MW50 is not anything that increases boost . It was a system that was used to allow for the increase of boost . It was a knock preventative . N2O could be considered a boost additive


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

> B&V concluded that the Messerschmitt design was seriously flawed


Personally I trust the aircraft engineers of Messerschmitt over the shipyard engineers of Blohm Voss. 8)


----------



## jamierd (Oct 27, 2009)

surely if you are arriving in jan 1942 the first thing you would want to do is stop Barbarossa this will give you the entire luftwaffe to turn loose on britain again


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> ...
> As of 30 June 1943, the Luftwaffe had
> 1849 SE fighters (vs 1500 RAF fighters, which were largely composed of obsolate types btw),
> 554 night fighters (vs ca 570 RAF TE fighters, again mostly obsolate types),
> ...



Any detailed overview of RAF's 'obsolete' fighters in 1943, both SE and TE? Plus, how do you rate the radars of 1943 era night figters (= the 50% of an night fighter)?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

Kurfurst, I agree on your proposals for the Bf 109 and also on focusing production on the Ju 88. In another thread I suggested focusing everything on the Me 410 instead of on the Ju 88 but the reason is the same: less projects and more production.
But I have some reservations against your comment on the 605AS. As you know it did produce a little bit less power at sealevel because of inertia of the bigger compressor. Especially on the Eastern front combat was at low altitude. Perhaps it wasn't as important as the Reichsverteidigung but no reason to give up on it.
So perhaps continue production until the ASM engine becomes available in numbers in the Spring of 1944 and then ;ake the AS standard ? 



davebender said:


> Personally I trust the aircraft engineers of Messerschmitt over the shipyard engineers of Blohm Voss. 8)


I don't know if you are serious on this. 
But if you are, let me just say that Mtt was seriously overstretched and had done a hasty job on the Me 155. RLM ordered the project to be transferred to B&V. Mtt was to cooperate with B&V but refused to do so. They had told the RLM that the conversion would have been simple and refused to acknowledge that this was simply not true. And that's probably why they didn't want B&V to continue on the project. 

One can write a book on how Mtt was more into power games than into actually winning the war. He only wanted one thing and that was a monopoly on the entire aircraft order book. Even when he had the order for the first jet fighter he started to advocate the Me 209 as an alternative to the 262 just so FW wouldn't get an order for the 190D. In the end Mtt had so many programs running it was becoming counterproductive. And still Mtt kept on bidding for new assignments and taking on new projects. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

The "shipyard engineers" had only brought 6 different designs of powered aircraft to flight status by the time they took over the "155" project. 

If not quite as many as the "aircraft engineers of Messerschmitt" it is not like they didn't have some idea of aircraft design and construction.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 27, 2009)

Okay, that took all of about three minutes... Denying that the Bf-109 had a critical / fatal / unacceptable landing gear design that resulted in *catastrophic* problems for the Luftwaffe is like denying that the sun came up this morning...

The wide-tracked, inward-folding gear on the Me-155 was the solution and I would have shot those stupid ship engineers over at B&V 

1) "The *most notorious* aspect of the Bf-109 was it's *appalling takeoff characteristics*. *An estimated 3,000 aircraft were lost* [destroyed] during takeoffs in which the pilot lost control. Landing characteristics were also challenging..." [appalling]
-- Air Warfare Boyle pg. 410

2) "*At least 10%* of *all* Bf 109s were *lost [destroyed]* in takeoff and landing accidents, 1,500 of which occurred between 1939 and 1941 ." 
-- Boyle pg. 25-26

*{The number of aircraft made temporarily unserviceable in takeoff/landing accidents was significantly higher. See below...}*

3) "*11,000 of the 33,000* built were *lost or damaged* during takeoff and landing accidents - (1/3) one third of the number built by Germany." 
-- FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine

4) From a 2008 post by HoHun on this forum... 

Finnish use of the Bf-109

Total war-time losses: 61 aircraft
Losses at landing: 9 aircraft
Losses at take-off: 10 aircraft

*31% of the Finnish Bf-109 losses were due to take-off/landing accidents*

5) Go to Luftwaffe in Norway
(The Luftwaffe in Norway and scan the damage/loss reports for landing accidents. The numbers are absurd.)

6) In truth, the Bf-109 owes its reputation more to force majeure and the ability of some outstanding pilots than to any intrinsic quality of the airplane itself. The Fw-190 was an airplane that was better than the Messerschmitt on all qualities other than altitude performance; for combat above 24,000 feet - which is where the Battle of Germany took place between 1943-45 - the Luftwaffe didn't have anything else it could use. * In fact, more pilots were killed in the 109 from landing and takeoff accidents than were lost in combat, and nearly as many 109s were lost due to its vicious takeoff characteristics and difficult landing technique as were shot down in combat. Gunter Rall, the number-three ranking Luftwaffe experte once told me that there were only two kinds of Messerschmitt 109 pilots: those who had survived a ground loop and those who hadn't.* The landing gear was weak, the wing had an unfortunate tendency to come off in high-g combat maneuvering, and the design of the cockpit forced the pilot to close the canopy on startup, which severely restricted his view during the two most dangerous parts of a flight in the fighter - takeoff and landing. The Bf-109 became famous in spite of itself.
--Scott Van Aken

It's fairly obvious that *10%* of ALL Bf-109's were destroyed by it's landing gear/landing/takeoff characteristics and over *30%* were made varying degrees of unserviceable by the same problem. So we either bolt the Me-155 wing on the thing or we cancel the whole program. That the Luftwaffe tolerated this insanity is almost beyond belief...

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2009)

> my advice would be to start shooting people just like Stalin did. Stalin didn't have to put up with long development and production delays when it came to weapons. First you got a letter urging you (and the team) to hurry up. Then you got a letter warning you to hurry up. And when you didn't hurry up and deliver then you, and everyone that even remotely looked like you, got shot.


   


Otto von Bismarck Quotes


> Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.
> 
> Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2009)

Bronc said:


> Okay, that took all of about three minutes... Denying that the Bf-109 had a critical / fatal / unacceptable landing gear design that resulted in *catastrophic* problems for the Luftwaffe is like denying that the sun came up this morning...



We can also use the maxim that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'll bet most accidents with P51's Spits and the like occurerred during the landing or take off phase . Whats funny is the Spit undercart is 6" narrower them the 109


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

10 % seems about ok... I thought you were talking about a much higher number. 
Listen Bronc, I appreciate it a lot that you went through the effort of looking this stuff up. Many people come here and just make broad statements without backing them up. You do the effort!

But be adviced ... on this forum we have had several or even damn many discussions about the Bf 109 landing and take off accidents. For instance: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/me-109-vs-fw-190-take-off-landing-accidents-12879.html which shows that the Fw 190 suffered about similar landing and take off accident numbers. 
I am more than willing to argue further with you about this but google this forum a bit because much has already been said...

You should also ask yourself how much of these accidents were caused by badly trained pilots? How much was the result of the tail wheel strut? Or the result of bad airfields on the Russian front ??

That being said, 10 % of aircraft lost to landing and take off, others repairable, ... I am not really impressed by such a figure because of the reasons I already mentioned. It is also important to realize that these accidents usually did not result in the death of the pilot which was definitely the most important element of the aircraft. 
To build a new aircraft because of this? No thanks.



Shortround6 said:


> The "shipyard engineers" had only brought 6 different designs of powered aircraft to flight status by the time they took over the "155" project.
> 
> If not quite as many as the "aircraft engineers of Messerschmitt" it is not like they didn't have some idea of aircraft design and construction.


How many aircraft did Messerschmitt develop before the Bf 109? 
B&V was lead by Richard Vogt, and that, my friend, was no ship builder...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Vogt_(aircraft_designer)

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

Messerschmitt had done fewer powered aircraft when he/they did tthe 109 but I was refering to the time at which B&V took over the 155 project. By that time Messerschmitt or his enginers had had worked on more designes, some of them quite steller, like the Bf 161 and 162

Maybe I was too subtle, I was trying to point out that the peaple at B&V were not exactly the novices at aircraft design and construction that the term "shipyard engineers" portrayed them to be.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 27, 2009)

sorry dude, didn't get that. It's clear now I re-read your post. 


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2009)

No problem


----------



## Bronc (Oct 28, 2009)

Nobody takes a consultant serious in this market unless he recommends the *immediate liquidation* of someone, and I'm fairly certain the same would hold true for the Luftwaffe. So I'm starting a list:

1) *"The Fat Man" Herman Goring* - He's gotta go. About 500 specifications of war profiteering and looting would be the most straightforward way: to repay his incompetence and dereliction of duty.

2) *Willie Messerschmitt* - Now let's not get all sentimental. The Dr/Prof got so greedy that outright treason should be easy to prove.

3) *The RLM* - Transfer the Luftwaffe's technical officers back to the front, and then line the rest of the RLM up against a wall. (The firing squad should be given orders to aim poorly.) All those worthless bureaucrats gotta go.

4) *Nearly everybody at B&V except for Richard Vogt (and maybe the janitors.)* (Talk about turning a beautiful straightforward design like the Me-155 into a freaking clusterf-cked up mess.)

5) *Those assholes over at BMW* who can't figure out a faster way to put a turbocharger on a 801.

6) *The morons at Jumo* who keep delaying the 213A.

7) *Oberst Beppo Schmid*, the head of Luftwaffe "intelligence" during the Battle of Britain.

8] *The dip-stick who was flying the plane* when it hit a smokestack and killed Werner Molders. *We're going to dig that dead-guy up and shoot him as a matter of principle*. While we're at it, we should also shoot the body of Mr. Ernst *"I don't need any more fighters"* Udet for fatally delaying Germany's aircraft engine development.

9) *Wernher von Braun* - for selling us a pig in a poke. *"Why are we short of strategic metals and materials all the time? Well...maybe it's because we are putting them all in the V-2's and shooting them at the British..."*

10) *???*


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Bronc said:


> 5) *Those assholes over at BMW* who can't figure out a faster way to put a turbocharger on a 801.



On the Luftwaffe forum 12 O'clock High!, I found this interesting thread on the Fw 190A and turbo superchargers:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190A poor high-altitude performance - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

The information in this thread suggests the lack of effective turbo superchargers for the BMW radial engine was more complicated than simple neglect, such as Germany's lack of adequate metal alloys, and that turbo supercharger development for radial engines was laborious and tedious.


----------



## paradoxguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Bronc said:


> 2) *Willie Messerschmitt* - Now let's not get all sentimental. The Dr/Prof got so greedy that outright treason should be easy to prove.



Bronc-

Your assertion about Willi Messerschmitt piqued my curiousity, could you elaborate more on this? How did his greed lead to treasonous activity? 

I've long had a dim view of Messerschmitt from the structural defects of the Bf 109F (inadequate bracing resulting in tail break-offs, wing crumpling) that resulted in midair disintegration and cost the lives of many Luftwaffe fighter pilots, including the aces Gustav Sprick and Wilhelm Balthasar, and generally flimsy construction of the Bf 109 series that rendered its pilots more vulnerable than necessary in combat situations and limited its development.

Thanks,
PG


----------



## Bug_racer (Oct 28, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> On the Luftwaffe forum 12 O'clock High!, I found this interesting thread on the Fw 190A and turbo superchargers:
> 
> Focke-Wulf Fw 190A poor high-altitude performance - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
> 
> The information in this thread suggests the lack of effective turbo superchargers for the BMW radial engine was more complicated than simple neglect, such as Germany's lack of adequate metal alloys, and that turbo supercharger development for radial engines was laborious and tedious.




This deserves its own thread 
Good information here


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

Turbo chargers were not fast or easy to deal with at the time. 

The therory is easy, the practice is hard. The American Military had actually built just under 100 turbo supercharged aircraft by the time they got into WWII, some dating back to the late 20s. GE had been working on them since 1917. THe only other country to put in large amounts of time and effort was the Soviet Union and I don't think they got any into service in any nmbers. 
The really hard parts are building a high quaility turbine and then controling it. Many an early turbo plane came to greif when it's turbine exploded. Most American aircraft put steel scatter sheilds between the turbos and occupied areas of the aircraft. When used as a 1st stage in a two stage system the turbo has to run at low speeds on the ground and providel little or no boost by using a waste gate to dump the exhaust before it flows through the turbine. As the plane ascends the gate slowly closes putting more and more of the exhaust gases through the turbine. once the plane has reached operational hight and wants to come down the reverse has to happen without the waste gate or controls haven "frozen" due to low temperatures or the turbine will overspeed and destroy itself and maybe the plane. This has to be automatic on a fighter, A bomber might have the time (and manpower) to control the turbo/s manually but iti is still not a good idea. 
AN exploding turbine has been likened to a direct hit from an AA shell. 

Adding turbos to existing aircraft is niether cheap or easy. one basic text book of the time estimated that a proper turbo set up could occupy 10 cubic feet of space for a 1000hp engine. HP requirements and volume might not be strictly proportional but "just Adding" a turbo to an existing small fighter is not going to be easy. There was a reason one of the FW prototypes was called the"'Kangaroo"

Part of the problem with ANY two stage supercharger is charge heating. The more the air is compressed the hotter it is before it enters the cylinders and the higher the risk of detonation. Most peaple got around this by using an inter/after cooler of some sort. THis is what actually accounted for a fair amount of the bulk. But without it high altitude performance is severly comprimised. THe P-63 tried to do away with it and substitute water/alcohol injection for charge cooling.

Even the US turbo effort might have come to Greif until it was discovered that turbine blades could be cast rather than machined. Machining was all well and good for prototypes but would have been a nightmare in mass production.

Somebody in Germany might have put a bit more effort into 2 stage supercharging a little earlier. It was used on several German Grand Prix racers in the late 30s so some of the basic therory/knowledge was available. They didn't really use charge cooling though, finning the exterior of the intake manifolds doesn't really count although it shows the idea was there.

Germans seem to have skipped trying to improve things at 25,000-35,000ft and jumped to trying to build planes to fight at 35,000-45,000ft. OF course try to forcast the future 2 years or more down the road when one could expect prototypes to turn into operational squadrons is always a bit tough.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 28, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Source...? What units do these include, first line or second line or both?
> What about servicibility rates?
> 
> Your figures seem to be largely incomplete on the Luftwaffe side.
> ...



Were all those 8586 units deployed against the UK?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> Bronc-
> 
> Your assertion about Willi Messerschmitt piqued my curiousity, could you elaborate more on this? How did his greed lead to treasonous activity?
> 
> ...


Take a look at post nr 32. I explained briefly what Mtt was up to.


Let me just stir this up a bit.
Nr 10 of who had to be shot ... Kurt Tank ! 
You may ask why...
It's because of what he did or better did not do during 1943/1944. 
All he had to do ... all he had to do ... was put a freakin inline engine in a Fw 190. DB 603 was ready and he made the Fw 190C back in 1943. The Luftwaffe urgently needs a stronger fighter for high altitude. So what does he do? Instead of focusing on the C he goes for a turbocompressor (Kangaru) on the 190C, he goes for the Jumo 213 powered Fw 190D and at the same time starts building the Ta 152 and Ta 153. Some say he was not allowed to continue with the Db 603 but this seems dubious for several reasons. In any case, it took him an entire year, a full 12 months to get the Dora operational and only because he wanted the radiator nicely in front of the engine. He should have finished the 190C which would then have entered service in early 1944. Later he can put a Jumo 213 in it, and he can even work on his annular radiator. But not 4 fighters at the same time please!

And I won't even start on what the hell he was thinking when building the Ta 154. 

I am expecting some flak now haha 
Kris


----------



## proton45 (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Germany did not run out of aircraft. They produced over 35,000 during 1944, as many as 1942 and 1943 combined. As for fighters, they averaged over 1,000 Me-109s and over 600 Fw-190s per month during 1944.
> 
> The problem was fuel. The bottom fell out when the synthetic fuel plants were bombed during 1944. After 5 years of trying RAF Bomber Command finally managed to make a serious contribution to the allied war effort. Perhaps Germany was lulled into a false sense of security by the bombing failures of 1939 to 1943.




They may have had a lot of aeroplanes (because the manufacturers where under a lot of pressure to produce), but the quality and reliability really suffered as the war went on. In some cases "new" fighters had to be broken down and reassembled, just to make sure everything was proper. And frequently pilots felt unsure of the reliability of their new aeroplanes and it hampered their confidence in the air....sabotage was a common problem because of the practice of using "slave labor"...  


p.s. I agree with the "landing gear" issue...I made a similar comment in another topic.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

Not much you can do about that under wartime conditions. Other WWII equipment like the T-34 tank also had quality control problems. Not to mention aircraft like the P-38 and Me-210 which were rushed into mass production before the bugs were fixed.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> Not much you can do about that under wartime conditions. Other WWII equipment like the T-34 tank also had quality control problems. Not to mention aircraft like the P-38 and Me-210 which were rushed into mass production before the bugs were fixed.



If one could better protect the workforce and factory system I believe quality would have been better...but as it was, as the factory's where destroyed and trained employees where displaced (loose of homes) killed or pressed into military service...the quality of the weapons deteriorated.

Maybe if they had moved production facility's underground, and relocated the essential trained workforce earlier...it could have made a difference.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 28, 2009)

*Shooting Kurt Tank? Sacrilege! Sacrilege!!*

*However,* I have both books by Dietmar Harmann, _Fock-Wulf Ta-152 _and _Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose"_ and reading between the lines in both books, *I get the distinct impression *that Kurt Tank *stalled, blanched and resisted *for over a year and a half (maybe two years) going to production with the Jumo 213 series engines in a Fw-190 airframe. *He had his heart set *on the DB-603 series engines from the very beginning, and he used every hiccup in the 213's development to try to get it.

*[The Rest of the Story Self-Edit]* Okay, after rereading Dietmar Harmann's _Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose"_ we have the following:

Daimler Benz first proposes the DB 603 in *September, 1936.* (pg 12) *The RLM halts development* six months later and it's not until the end of 1939 that the RLM shows official interest again. (pg12) *Kurt Tank and Focke-Wulf show INTENSE interest in the DB-603 in January, 1940.* (pg 12) Daimler Benz is willing to play ball, BUT *the RLM REJECTS* this initative on 12 Feb. 1940 by saying, _*"...the BMW 801 will suffice for the immediate future..."*_ Kurt Tank and Focke Wulf then go about finding a way to improve the BMW 801's performance and spend 1940 and 1941 working on the FW-190B prototypes. *Because...*the Junkers Jumo engine, after an extended development phase, *is DROPPED* from the production schedule in October, 1940. Plus...it's further development is severely restricted. (pg 36) Not until early 1942 does the RLM decide to develope and produce the Jumo 213. (pg 36) The first installation of a mock Jumo 213 is delivered to Focke-Wulf in July, 1942. By the summer of 1942,Tank and Focke-Wulf give up on the BMW 801. Without a turbocharger or better supercharger the 801 is not going to get better. *Within a month, Tank has two prototypes flying with the DB 603 and by October, 1942 they prove to be the cat's ass up to 39,000 feet. Instead of going to production, the RLM now decides that they need, absolutely have to have, a plane that performs at 45,000 feet.* and refuses to produce the DB 603 powered FW-190. Talk about a clusterf-ck. 1943 is lost trying to achieve that goal and trying to get the Juno 213 into production.

And from Dietmar Harmann's other book, _Fock-Wulf Ta-152 _ we have this little tid-bit. In June, 1941 Focke Wulf set up a new factory in Adelheide - Branch Plant 8 that was solely responsible for the development and construction of prototypes. Only 1,500 employees originally worked there and by the end of 1941, 1900 worked there, but after that, the number declined to 1,200!! No wonder it was taking them months and months and months to do anything over there. 

*Unforgivable really* and damn it, *maybe we do have to shoot him for this incredibly selfish error in judgement.* So, maybe not so much.

The underlying point in all of this is the* incredible lack of unity and cohesion *in most of Hitler's / Germany's key people and organizations. *They were fighting a World War after all* and the *personal jealousies and rivalries really doomed the effort*.

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

To where? Germany cannot move factories to the other side of the Ural Mountains like Russia can or place aircraft orders in the U.S.A. like Britain can.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> To where? Germany cannot move factories to the other side of the Ural Mountains like Russia can or place aircraft orders in the U.S.A. like Britain can.



Like i said...maybe underground.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2009)

proton45 said:


> They may have had a lot of aeroplanes (because the manufacturers where under a lot of pressure to produce), but the quality and reliability really suffered as the war went on. In some cases "new" fighters had to be broken down and reassembled, just to make sure everything was proper. And frequently pilots felt unsure of the reliability of their new aeroplanes and it hampered their confidence in the air....sabotage was a common problem because of the practice of using "slave labor"...


I agree but let me add a couple more elements. 
German aircraft industry suffered from overengineering until 1944. They actually built the aircraft on a standard which was way beyond that of the allies. This is also related to what I said before about the RLM stuck in pre/war thinking. Before the war aircraft were built to last years. They were constructed in an artisanal way resulting in very high quality. The allies soon realized that aircraft in wartime didn´t survive long and that production could be increased by simplifying an aircraft. For instance and very simple, they would use less bolts to keep parts together. Not ideal but it worked fine for the limited life expectancy of an aircraft. Only after Speer took over did they start simplifying production. This is quite clear on the Bf 109. The number of manhours was only about 5,000 but they actually managed to bring it down to 3,000 and below. This was mainly because of a simplified production. 
So far all went well, the quality was still acceptable. 
This only changed in the last months of 1944. But this seems to be a result of the extensive decentralization of the aircraft production. To counter the massive allied air attacks on the aircraft industry the Germans started vigorously to break up production lines in smaller plants spread out in the area. This meant that coordination between these plants started to become problematic. Especially when design changes were ordered. And this of course happened all over the time. Also the logistical problems due to attacks on German railroads and waterways meant that parts didn't reach the assembly plants in time. To cope with these shortages they also often took parts from other damaged aircraft but they often had dubious quality or were from a different submodel. For all these reasons it's difficult to have a clear image of German aircraft production. One can often find parts of 4 different aircraft in a single newly produced aircraft. 
A final problem is also the lack of fuel and the logistical problems. These resulted in aircraft often waiting weeks for delivery to the units. In the last weeks of the war thousands of aircraft were stuck in transit ... somewhere in Germany. The Germans kept producing aircraft at this point though they had no way to actually bring them to the units. 

Besides all that, there is a more fundamental problem with the German aircraft production. It is the production of spare parts. Especially Speer wrote a lot about this in his memoirs. The following is difficult to comprehend but one must see this in the light of an absolute dictatorship where following orders was often more important than doing what's right. 
German manufacturers were ordered to produce a certain amount of aircraft and tanks each month. So they did. But senior German nazi's were so shortsighted that they did not realize that a complex weapon such as an aircraft, tank or even truck will not function for a long time witout sufficient spare parts and a logistical system (supplying these parts and technicians to install them) to support them. All Hitler asked for was "how many Panthers and Me 262s were delivered last month and how many are you going to deliver next month". Telling the old man that production quota have not been met because more spare parts had to be produced would not go down well. The Fuehrer ordered 500 aircraft so he will get them. Germany was not the place to criticize orders of the Fuehrer. He often gave orders which were ridiculous to most ... yet few were disobeyed. 
So what's the result? During most of the war half of the German combat aircraft and tanks were not operational. Speer's team calculated that a 20% part of the actual production should had to go to production of spare parts. This would result in 20% less aircraft and tanks but of those the vast majority would remain operational and reach the levels of for instance the American forces which almost always flew with full strength. 

Then again, another problem would arise: pilot shortages. For similar idiotic reasons the nazi leaders did not grasp the importance of a proper training and of sufficient numbers of pilots. Hitler ordered a production rise without thinking for a single moment about the pilots to fly them. As if they could also be produced in a factory. When the Americans entered the war they did not immediately order the full blown production of combat aircraft. They first focused on training aircraft, facilities and personnel. Once that was on its way did they look at combat aircraft. Germans did it the other way around. So if they would have increased the number of operational aircraft they would have run into problems. Germans always had a surplus of pilots because of the fact that most were grounded together with their aircraft.

Sorry for the long read.
Kris


----------



## Bronc (Oct 28, 2009)

Okay, after rereading Dietmar Harmann's Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose" we have the following:

Daimler Benz *first* proposes the *DB 603* in *September, 1936*. (pg 12) The *RLM halts *development six months later and it's not until the end of 1939 that the RLM shows official interest again. (pg12) *Kurt Tank and Focke-Wulf show INTENSE interest in the DB-603 in January, 1940.* (pg 12) Daimler Benz is willing to play ball, BUT *the RLM REJECTS this initative on 12 Feb. 1940* by saying, *"...the BMW 801 will suffice for the immediate future..."* Kurt Tank and Focke Wulf then go about finding a way to improve the BMW 801's performance and spend 1940 and 1941 working on the FW-190B prototypes. Because...in October 1940, despite an extended development phase, the RLM decides to drop the Junkers Jumo 213A engine from the production schedule. And incredibly: it's further development is severely restricted. (pg 36) Not until early 1942 does the RLM decide to develope and produce the Jumo 213. (pg 36) The first installation of a mock Jumo 213 is not delivered to Focke-Wulf until July, 1942. By the summer of 1942, Tank and Focke-Wulf give up on the BMW 801. Without a turbocharger or better supercharger, the BMW 801 is not going to get better.* Within a month, Tank has two prototypes flying with the DB 603 and by October, 1942 they prove to be the cat's ass up to 39,000 feet.* Instead of going to immediate production, the RLM now decides they need, they absolutely have to have, a plane that performs at 45,000 feet and they refuse to order the DB 603 powered FW-190 into production. *Talk about a clusterf-ck.* All of 1943 is lost trying to achieve the 45,000 ft. goal and trying to get the Juno 213 engines developed and into production.

And from Dietmar Harmann's other book, Fock-Wulf Ta-152 we have this little tid-bit. In June, 1941 Focke Wulf set up a new factory in Adelheide - Branch Plant 8 that was solely responsible for the development and construction of prototypes. Only *1,500* employees originally worked there and by the end of 1941, *1900* worked there, but after that, the number declined to *1,200*!! No wonder it was taking them months and months and months to do anything over there. *Apparently, there was no profit in R&D, only expense. *

Talk about a bunch of stupid Nazis!! Wow-o-Wow...

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

> Daimler Benz first proposes the DB 603 in September, 1936. (pg 12) The RLM halts development six months later and it's not until the end of 1939 that the RLM shows official interest again.


That was a serious blunder. However there is another element to the story. RLM began funding for the Jumo222 engine at the same time the DB603 was halted. This was cutting edge stuff during 1936 to 1937. Nobody knew which engine proposals would work and which proposals would end on the scrap heap after absorbing lots of development money. For that matter nobody knew the DB600 program would produce the 1,850 hp DB605DB engine during 1944. Without the benefit of hindsight you examine the various engine proposals and make your best educated guess as to which proposals offer the most promise. 

If I get the benefit of hindsight....
During 1936 Germany throws all development funding behind the DB600 / DB601 / DB605 series as a near term solution. The Jumo004A is the long term solution. They don't need anything else. However Germany does need to increase production of high octane fuel for the DB605DB and to stockpile chromium for the Jumo004A.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2009)

That was awesome. Also the Ta 153 info from the book is interesting,

But it still remains strange why the Dora was chosen, its Jumo 213A engine did not perform much better at very high altitude. In the end they adopted the Dora while knowing it could not perform at 45k. That remains difficult to comprehend.

The main reason I have heard is that the RLM reserved the DB 603 for the Me 410 and Do 217M/N. But that too is questionable as the 603 production was quite sufficient in 1944. And also the Db 603 had its problems worked out while the Dora still had engine problems in the first weeks.

In any case, one can wonder what Tank was up to all through 1943 and 1944. He failed to come up with something new between the Fw 190A in 1941 and the Fw 190D9 at the end of 1944. And then within a matter of weeks he had the Dora and the Ta 152. Also a Ta 152C prototype and several Fw 190D versions, from D-11 to D-15 ! All of this stuff in a matter of 7 months or so. So that's what I mean by bad management of projects. It's like starving for weeks and then suddenly getting the biggest banquet ever of which you can only manage to digest a fraction.
Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> However Germany does need to increase production of high octane fuel for the DB605DB and to stockpile chromium for the Jumo004A.


I don't think the C3 was all that much more difficult to produce than B4. I used to think so but it was merely a different thoughmore complex procedure. In the end the Germans didn't have more shortage of C3 than of B4.

Kurfurst had a say about it ... Axis History Forum • View topic - 87 octane fuel vs. 100 octane !

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2009)

> don't think the C3 was all that much more difficult to produce


Then why didn't the Luftwaffe switch entirely to C3 fuel by 1939?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

As another point, if Diamler benz had tried to develop the 603 at the same time as the 600-601 would it have affected the introduction and production of the 601?
One of the reasons that R-R shelved the Griffon during the mid 30s. Not enough staff to work on it and the Merlin at the same time and of course they were sidetracked by the Vulture. 

In 1936 the 600 was still using carburators and had yet to get the hydraulic drive for it's supercharger. 

in 1936 NOBODY had a really good supercharger. 

In 1935 100 octane gas was around $4.00 a gallon in the US. Yes it was the stuff of the future but trying to predict WHEN in the future was the hard part.

ALL of these companies, Axis and Allied alike, were much smaller in 1936-38 than they were just a few years later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> Then why didn't the Luftwaffe switch entirely to C3 fuel by 1939?



I don't know but even the Allies Kept much lower grades in production. In fact much of training even with P40s and like in the US was done on 87 octane fuel. Primanry training was done with 73 or 80 octane.

You may get a lower yeild (fewer gallons of gas per barrel of base stock) with the higher octane/performance stuff.
It might require a different cracking or distilation procedure.

The development of "Cat cracking" saved tens of thousands of tons of steel in refinery construction compared to convetional cracking of gasoline for the same yeild. 

and you have to get those aromatic compounds from somewhere


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Oct 29, 2009)

Off point but related. It appears that in February 1943 Goering may have wanted to produce the Fiat 55 as a replacement for the 109.

G55 - Aircraft History

Transcript from the German official BA-MA archives courtesy of Civettone:

Milch: ... Perhaps Petersen can inform us on this question and also about the comparison flights in Italy.

Petersen: ... There will be a further report about comparison flights with all the Italian types ... Against this, the Italian fighter is equal to the German fighter, especially as regards rate of climb. They are also superior in armament. The Fiat 55 aircraft has four cannon and a performance similar to that of the German aircraft, although powered by an engine that
is a hundred horsepower less.

Peltz: Were they series or experimental aircraft?

Petersen: There is an experimental series of ten aircraft, but these trials concerned new aircraft that had been 'titivated up'.

Goering: I'm glad that the Italians at long last have produced a respectable fighter. And I can only say; let them build them to capacity.

Milch: We also should do something in that sphere. It is indeed a disgrace to our own industry.

Goering: The Italians have never built inferior aircraft and have always been competent in the construction of aircraft and engines. I remember the Fiat and Alfa. They have also held the world speed record. The ability of the Italian aircraft industry has always been of the best. They are unable to mass produce however, and there we must help them. We can consider ourselves lucky, if they have produced a good fighter aircraft. It's one in the eye for our own people anyway.

Petersen: We must attend to this at once. The airframe of the Fiat G 55 can accommodate the DB 603 engine, while the Me 109 is unable to do so any longer. The G 55 with the DB 603 would be an ideal fighter aircraft.

Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.

Goering: It's to be hoped however that for the purposes of these comparison flights, they've been informed about this, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Petersen: The fighter specialist has flown the aircraft. With the exception of the radio it carried complete equipment, and fuel for one and a half hours, whereas we carried fuel for only one hour. We can't ignore the fact that the Italian aircraft has a performance equal to that of our latest types.

Milch: Then please obtain three Italian aircraft at once, and fly them here, in Rechlin. I would have the DB 603 installed in these aircraft that we have been discussing this morning. It would mean a considerable advance towards the Me 209. I can't imagine the FW 190 with the BMW 801 engine as it is today being sufficient for the next two and half years. [sic!] Especially as we don't know what the English and the Americans are building.

...

Goering: I'm also in favour of the proposal. However I consider it more than likely that the English will effect an improvement with their own types. I would like to ask what is our best means of improving our fighters other than the jet propulsion business?
Milch: The Me 209 and especially its engine. ...

...

Goering: If the Italian aircraft is good, then we won't deny the fact, and we'll mass produce them here. We don't want any false pride.

Milch: Thereby we could advance a year.

Galland: And it would also do our designers good.

Goering: On top of that perhaps we could include the Italian pilots as well, in our complete programme. Anyway I'm very pleased to hear this about the Italians.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 29, 2009)

Davidicus, thanks for bringing that up again. It now hits me on how they talk about the DB 603 without even mentioning the Jumo. If the G.55 was licence produced it would have gotten the DB 603. This was still in 1943. Also the Me 209 was designed for both engines. So it seems the DB 603 was considered to be the standard piston engine for fighters of the new generation ...

So could it be that the Fw 190D with Jumo 213 was really meant as a high altitude (45k ft) interceptor and didn't get a DB 603 for that reason? I have never seen anything in that sense before. The performance of the Jumo 213A was well understood. It was not for altitudes over 30k ft...

Kris


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> Then why didn't the Luftwaffe switch entirely to C3 fuel by 1939?



Largely because there was no point - German aero engines had generous displacement - 33 liters and up - and you don't need to use high boosting for such engine to get plenty of power. The limiting factor for German/Russian were thus mechanical factors (ie. the engine bearings and other components had to be able to take that power load), rather than concerns about knocking. Several Allied reports mention that they simply do not understand why the German engines are not taking full advantage of their high octane fuel.

In case of 'small' displacement engines, ie. Allison, Merlin - high boosting was essential if you wanted to get the same powers as the larger displacement engine, and you absolutely needed high octane fuels to get away without knocking. They operated on far greater manifold pressures, to compensate for their much smaller displacement.

As an example, the 35-liter DB 605AM, with a mere 1.7 ata boost, or about +7 lbs/sq. inch, was able to deliver roughly 1800 HP and could do either with water injection and 87 octane, or with 100/130 or 100/150 octane fuel alone. But this boost was used in 1944, and before that, 1.42ata was the max, yet it could still produce 1550 HP, on 87 octane.

In contrast, the 27 liter Merlin III at +6.25 sq./inch produced 1030 HP on 87 octane; the Merlin 66, to produce 1700 HP, it required +18 lbs/sq. inch or 2.22 atm, and to produce 2000 HP, a boost as high as +25 lbs/sq. inch or 2.7 ata was required. 

In constrast to the 35 liter DB 605 and the 27 liter Merlin, the 44.5 liter DB 603A on the other hand, could produce 1750 HP at 1.42ata, and did not required more than 87 octane. Of course you could boost it further with high octane fuels, and the last ones of the 603s developed as much as 2800 HP, but plenty of work had to be done until the engine was not falling apart under such loads... take a look at say the racing engines in the 1930s... the DB 601 racers produced as much as 2600 HP or so, but could not last more than a couple of hours under such load.. obviously this isn't practical for military applications.

As the Americans say, there is no replacement for displacement. You can get the same results by superchargering, intercooling et all, but its much more complicated to do so.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 29, 2009)

The German engines had much higher compression ratios, Merlins stayed at 6:1. Increased CRs require an in increase in octane for proper operation.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 29, 2009)

Appearantly even DB 605D with its 8.5:1 CR could operate at 87 octane fuel and produce up to 1550 PS at 1.5 ata, so I don't think increased CR had that high 'octane requirements'. It did enchance fuel economy and especially altitude output though.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

The DB605 may be limited to 1.42ata for normal operations but it would be nice to have 1,800 to 2,000 hp availble for emergency use. You don't worry about damage to engine bearings when bounced by enemy fighter aircraft. If you survive to return home then the engine will be replaced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Actually it is the combination of compression ratio AND boost that requires high octane.

Think of 2 engines, one with a 7.5 compression ratio and using 1.5 ata of boost and the other 6.0 compresion ratio and 2.0 ata of boost. 
Combining the two factors together gives 11.25 for the first engine and 12.0 for the second. if every thing else is the same they are going to need similar fuel.
I know it doesn't work exactly like this but I am trying to keep it simple.

Factors that do affect this are many, fuel injection, shape of combustion chamber, cylinder cooling and a whole lot more inculding "TEMPERATURE OF THE INTAKE CHARGE/AIR" Since what we are trying to prevent is the auto-igniton of the fuel it is actualy the heat of compresion that is causing a large part of the problem. 
Our second engine is heating the air more before it even gets to the cylinder. The first engine is heating in more in the cylinder.

THe two engines are going to behave differently IF the cylinders are the same size. The first engine will use it's fuel more efficently, more power per pound of fuel burned going to the crankshaft but the second engine will actually make more power. 

Why?

Because at 2.0 ata of intake pressure it is putting 33% more fuel air into the cylinder than the engine using 1.5 ata of pressure. this is more than enough to compensate for the lower compression ratio. 

Of course the second engine will have to be built heavier to stand up to the extra pressure/power and cooling. 

Here is something that we tend to forget looking back at some of these engines. While the engine designers may have used power per unit of displacement as a measure of how good an engine was ( and we still do) the AIRFRAME designer could care less. The airframe guys only cared about THREE things. 
1.Power per unit of weight. how heavy the engine was for the power it gave.

2.THE bulk per HP. how big the engine was, frontal area or length, what was it going to take to house the engine.

3. The fuel efficency of the engine/s. how many pounds of fuel was it going to take to fly a certain mission. Intercepter mission of 1 hour or flying the mail across the atlantic. 

THe airframe guys could care less about how many liters of displacement it took or how many rpm.

as a concrete example it was estimated that the 6.67 compression ratio of the Allison cost it about 10% in max power compared to the Merlin's 6.0 on the same fuel. of course the Allisons extra displacement got back almost 5% of of that and the Allison did get slightly better fuel economy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> The DB605 may be limited to 1.42ata for normal operations but it would be nice to have 1,800 to 2,000 hp availble for emergency use. You don't worry about damage to engine bearings when bounced by enemy fighter aircraft. If you survive to return home then the engine will be replaced.



Returning home with a rod sticking through the side of the block isn't all that easy. Main bearing failures could result in the engine seizing completely and rod bearing failures usually ment throwing a rod.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 29, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Sorry for the long read.
> Kris



Golly, no reason to apologizes Kris, that was interesting reading.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

If a Spitfire is pumping lead into your aircraft then throwing a rod is not your most immediate concern.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> If a Spitfire is pumping lead into your aircraft then throwing a rod is not your most immediate concern.



No but if you throw a rod in the next two minutes the Spitfire will be back to pumping shells into your aircraft.

Or into your wingman as your 109 turns into a glider


----------



## Civettone (Oct 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> If a Spitfire is pumping lead into your aircraft then throwing a rod is not your most immediate concern.


If you are you going to tell the German pilot to only use it when bounced or only in extreme danger I wonder how that is going to work out. He'll probably use it whenever he judges it to be beneficial. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

> He'll probably use it whenever he judges it to be beneficial.


How did they enforce power restrictions on early model DB605s (before the oil foaming problem was fixed)?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 29, 2009)

By saying they will be shot if they use it. In fact I don't know, did this problem allow them to use full power at times or not at all ?


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Probably they could use whenever they wished, subject to review by squadron commanders.

American and perhaps british planes used 'tell tales" on the throttles. Crew chiefs knew when plane landed if "combat power" had been used even if they don't know for how long. Since using "combat power" did serious things to to spark plug life if not other things in the engine it would be a very foolish pilot who did not report use of "combat power" so appropriate maintaince could be performed. Unless the pilot had "borrowed " the plane of a pilot he didn't like

Abuse of combat power by "joy riding" or futile chases of too distant aircraft would probably bring reprimands.

Use of combat power also increased fuel consumption by a very large amount so pilots of short legged aircraft have to balance use of power vrs endurance.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 29, 2009)

9) *Wernher von Braun* - for selling us a pig in a poke. "Why are we short of strategic 
metals and materials all the time? Well...maybe it's because we are putting them all in the 
V-2's and shooting them at the British..."

Here is an excerpt from *"The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe"* (Pg 245)

On 26 May Milch flew to Peenemünde, where the army’s fourteen-ton A4
rocket was to be matched against the Luftwaffe’s flying-bomb.* Both could carry
a one-ton warhead to London, but Wernher von Braun’s rocket would cost
about a hundred times as much as each of Milch’s flying bombs.* The rocket’s
history went back seven years, so the army was understandably loath to cancel
it; and as it was an army project even a levelheaded weapons man like Speer felt
it his duty to support this anachronism in an age of Total War. Had it been
designed with the specific object of destroying the basis for Milch’s increased
aircraft production, it could not have selected scarcer commodities.* By the first
months of 1944 it was to employ two hundred thousand skilled workers, consume
a thousand tons of aluminium a month and tens of thousands of tons of
liquid oxygen, pure alcohol and hydrogen peroxide; it would swamp the electronics
and precision mechanisms industry with contracts and use up every
available machine tool. The Fi 103 flying-bomb had been designed to avoid these 
bottlenecks. Made of thin sheet steel and fuelled with paraffin, it promised to tie 
down a significant proportion of Britain’s air defences when it was employed, while 
the A4 rocket (the later ‘V-2’), being invulnerable to attack, would not.*

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2009)

I'm starting to wonder who will be left after Bronc shoots everyone he doesn't like.


----------



## Bronc (Oct 29, 2009)

More from _*"The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe."*_ I thought it was *Udet* who thought
*360 fighters a month* was *too many*, nope, it was General Jeschonnek. 

"Milch took his ambitious plan for ‘an umbrella over Germany’ to Göring and Jeschonnek 
late in *March, 1941*. ‘Herr Reichsmarschall,’ he said, *‘your total demand is for 360 new 
fighter aircraft per month. I fail to understand. If you were to say 3,600 fighters, then 
I would be bound to state that, against America and Britain combined, even 3,600 are 
too few! You must produce more. But to demand only 360 fighters!’* He turned a contemptuous 
gaze on *Jeschonnek*, but the Chief of the Luftwaffe Air Staff objected violently: *‘I do not know 
what I should do with more than 360 fighters!’*

Yeesh...

Bronc


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2009)

Well, if your training schools are turning out fewer than 360 fighter pilots a month.......


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2009)

How do you propose to train more pilots per month without using more aviation gasoline?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2009)

Sarcasm/joke to previous post. #79


----------



## davparlr (Oct 30, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Probably they could use whenever they wished, subject to review by squadron commanders.



An interesting side light on the over boost of aircraft engines. While I was in the AF, there was a strict C-141 dash one requirement stating that TRT (takeoff rated thrust) was not to be exceeded due to possible engine failure. One day a crew was on a training flight (light) and got runaway up hydraulic pitch trim (which was the one failure I felt could kill me before I could react) on takeoff, the pilot immediately slammed the throttles to the firewall greatly exceeding TRT. He accomplished a vertical recovery at 10,000 ft. over the end of the runway and made a safe landing. After that, word came down that TRT should not be exeeded due to shortening the life of the engine however use what was necessary in an emergency.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 30, 2009)

Bronc said:


> More from _*"The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe."*_ I thought it was *Udet* who thought
> *360 fighters a month* was *too many*, nope, it was General Jeschonnek.
> 
> "Milch took his ambitious plan for ‘an umbrella over Germany’ to Göring and Jeschonnek
> ...


To this day I still do not comprehend what Jeschonnek was thinking when the said that ? I mean, which general would turn down an offer to get more weapons??
Then again, he did kill himself in the end.




Shortround6 said:


> Well, if your training schools are turning out fewer than 360 fighter pilots a month.......


Well, you don't need 360 pilots every month for 360 fighters. My estimate is that you would need 1/3 or so.




> How do you propose to train more pilots per month without using more aviation gasoline?


That is of course impossible. Yet, I have often thought how this increase could be minimized. 
One way is to start working more with light training aircraft. Also for fighter training this could be done by some light single person aircraft, such as the Italian SAI.107 or the Skoda Kauba SK V-4. 
Another option is to get basic trainer aircraft flying on lower grade fuel. These fuels can be produced from natural oil instead of relying on the synthetic oil factories.

Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2009)

Just a thought, the Japanese used gliders to train their pilots in the initial stages. It would cover the basic principles, flying circuits, how to take off and land.

I am of course totally unbiased with this idea, but there is some logic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2009)

The post about 360 pilots was ment as a bit of a joke.

If you don't have enough qualified pilots all the fighters in the world aren't going to do you much good.

German Light training planes ran on mostly 80 octane fuel but a few would run on 73 octane. These are the 4, 6 and 8 cylinder Hirth's, The 8 cylinder Argus and the 7 cylinder Bramo.

I don't think you are going to get many more gallons of fuel per barrel of base stock for these fuels. 

Germans had made extensive use of Gliders for training in the late 20's and early 30's when under the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty.


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2009)

I have read that a pilot who is qualified in gliders,(sailplanes) makes a much better powered airplane driver. I believe the guy who landed the airliner in the Hudson was glider qualified.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 30, 2009)

No no, the Germans still produced and gliders during the war. It is hardly known but there was a substantial production there...

I suppose a lot was meant for specific glider pilots. But also initial training happened sometimes on gliders. Just like the Japanese. It could be a back up for a lack of proper training aircraft.

And you're absolutely right on those aircraft which used the lower octane. But there too it all depended on which version. For instance the HM 504A and E didn't run on the same fuel. Also goes for the BMW 132 for instance. The difference here is when they were produced: there was a clear evolution towards engines with a higher octane fuel. 
Perhaps this could be reversed and aircraft could use these older type engines again. Let me also explain why I think this is important. I know you won't produce more of these fuels but the difference is that there was still a flow of low-grade natural oil when the synthetic factories were out of order. That way at least basic training could still continue and thereby still delivering new recruits. 
And like I said, most of the weapons and fighter training could also happen on lighter aircraft (with Argus As 10) engines.
Of course this is all a what-if story, what the Germans could have done to keep their Luftwaffe operational. The problem of lack of fuel has to be linked to that of the pilots. Both were an equal threat to the survival of the Luftwaffe.

And one more thing, I would also start producing powered gliders and use those for (very) basic training. These had engines of 15-25 hp, much like that of a VW Kubelwagen. So fuel use was very limited.

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2009)

The Germans were short of fuel for trucks. And in the later stages of the war even did test runs of tanks on "producer gas" at the factories.

See: Wood gas generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THe 105hp take-off rated HM 504-A2 (4 liter) used 80 octane, not sure how much lower in power you want to go.
Although the smaller HM 60 (3.6 liter) would give 80hp for take off on 73 octane.

The BMW 132 was a bit large for a trainer engine, think P&W Hornet (27 liters) but the Bramo (Siemens) engine I refered to was a 7.7 liter engine of 160hp used in the Bücker Bü 133.

40-50 hp puts you in the Piper Cub area, helpful for the first few hours but not a lot of use after that. 

Same with power gliders (although I may be talking out of my butt here) after just a couple of hours the question is not "is the student progressing at all" which he is but "how much progress is the student making per hour of flight time". At some point the student is going to have to start using a plane that is more challanging to fly even if it does burn 4-6 times the fuel per hour before he is stuck in a fighter or bomber (even old 109Cs or Do 17s)


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2009)

That is true. However the shortage of aviation fuel is more critical. Unless you have fuel to combat allied bomber attacks Germany will quickly go into a death spiral as they destroy industrial infrastructure.

The only serious solution I can think of is production of the Jumo004A engine and Me-262 beginning in 1943. This requires deletion of something else that was produced historically like the Type XXI submarine program. But at least the factories and rail system will not get bombed to rubble.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 30, 2009)

Of course they were short on all fossil fuels. But it was nowhere as bad as it was with aviation fuel because 99.99% came from the chemical industry. 

And of course these light engines and aircraft are not a substitute for the larger and heavier ones. But they can take over a part of it which means a serious reduction in fuel consumption.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2009)

*1943 Recon Aircraft Production*
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
78 x Fw-200
394 x Ju-88
105 x Ju-188
23 x Ju-290
150 x Me-110
20 x Me-410

The earlier Ju-86 recon aircraft were powered by 1,000 hp Jumo207B diesel engines. Perhaps the recon version of the Ju-88 or Ju-188 could be powered by similiar diesel engines. This diesel powered recon aircraft would replace the 750 or so gasoline powered aircraft produced historically. That should make a small dent in the shortage of aviation gasoline.


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2009)

Gliders are very good at training people in the basic use of the controls, in the discipline involved in flying circuits and most importantly take offs and landings.
Powered gliders were not viable in the 30's and 40's due to the level of technology. 

Today we use the words Glider and Sailplane when talking about the same thing. However in the ww2 period there were distinct differences. Basically a glider, glided ie it didn't have the ability to climb. Sailplanes could climb (thermal) given the right conditions but they didn't come close to having the performance of even the most basic machine of today.

To save fuel I would use Gliders for the initial training transferring to primary trainiers after the initial weeding out process. It wouldn't save a huge amount but it would help.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Of course they were short on all fossil fuels. But it was nowhere as bad as it was with aviation fuel because 99.99% came from the chemical industry.
> 
> And of course these light engines and aircraft are not a substitute for the larger and heavier ones. But they can take over a part of it which means a serious reduction in fuel consumption.
> 
> Kris



True, and perhaps a few specially designed trainers might have helped a bit. 
I have kind of like the Gotha Go 149 since I saw a picture of it. Some sort of small wing High performance fighter trainer that uses a 240hp engine rather old real fighters with 700-1100hp engines might have allowed a few dozen more hours of training for the same amount of fuel. 

Or even an acrobatic monoplane with a 160hp straight 6? French 140-150hp Four?

The Germans had around 3400 Bücker Bü 181s (the plane in "the Great Escape") but they probably should have started mass production much sooner.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2009)

davebender said:


> *1943 Recon Aircraft Production*
> German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 78 x Fw-200
> 394 x Ju-88
> ...



Nope. The Junkers diesels, while quite inovative were also rather heavy for the power produced and while the weight savings in fuel did cancel out the heavy weight of the engines on long distance flights (mail flights across the south atlantic.) and the ease of turbo chargeing (cooler exhaust gases) help make some very high altitude recon planes, the weight and bulk of the engines does tend to limit their usefulness in high speed aircraft. That and the less the steller performance in the roles they did try them in.


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm not expecting anyone to put a diesel in the Me-109. 

I realize that diesel powered recon aircraft aren't the best. But they might be a better solution then running out of fuel for fighter pilot training.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 31, 2009)

Shortround, I was thinking about the Skoda-Kauba SK V-4
Skoda-Kauba SK 257

And yes those diesel engines become very bulky. 1000 HP seem to be the max I also have thought a lot about using them more. But here's my suggestion which I think you'll like. I would power the Ju 52 and Do 24 with Jumo 207 diesel engines. 
Now here's the fun part. We all agree that the Luftwaffe should have cooperated better with the submarine wolfpacks, right? But except for some Fw 200s; He 177s and Ju 290s the Luftwaffe failed to provide the U-boats with recon information. Now imagine the Do 24 (which was in fact supposed to get diesel engines) with Jumo 207s and with Hohentwiel airborne radar. Both the submarines as the Do 24 work on diesel. So ... why not refuel the Do 24s at sea? That way they could fly at least twice as long. Plus, these are seaplanes which means they can also land near the subs to bring them a badly needed repair part, or mail, or to evacuate a wounded sailor...

Also the bigger BV 222 was supposed to get 6 Jumo 207s.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2009)

> power the Ju 52 and Do 24 with Jumo 207 diesel engines


That sounds good to me. 

Fixing the aviation gasoline shortage cannot be accomplished with any single action. 1943 Germany needs a comprehensive program.
- Use gliders for training to the maximum extent possible.
- Use diesel engines for transport and recon aircraft to the maximum extent possible.
- Put the Jumo 004A engine and Me-262 into production on at least a limited scale as a bomber destroyer.
- Use Me-410s as night intruders vs RAF Bomber Command. Me-262s have replaced them for the daytime mission.

These actions will save German aviation fuel and provide increased protection for the synthetic fuel plants.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2009)

Planes powered by the JUMO Diesels include;
JU 86 both civil and military bombers and include about 40 of the extended wing,/pressure cabine "P" model used as a high altitude recon machine, also experimantal "R" models up to 52,000ft.

The BV 138 Flying boat, almost 300 built.
THE BV 139 long range float plane, 1 built.
The above mentioned BV222 version.
Dornier 18 twin engined flying boats.
Dornier 26 4 eingined flying boats. (3)
The above mentioned DO 24 prototypes.

THe JUMO diesels could weigh about 200-250lbs more than an equivilent 9 cylinder radial NOT including the liquied cooling system. 
On a three engined machine you could be looking at a difference of 1300-1500lbs depending on what you allow for coolant and radiators/pumps, etc. On a Ju 52 that could be 6-8 men on a short flight.
The trade-off is they do get better economy, on the order of 66-75% while cruising so for long range flights (over ocean recon) they do show an advantage. It was found that they didn't like sudden changes in RPM and were not well suited for combat use, at least the ones used in Spain. 

THe Russians, French, British and Americans also experimented with Diesels.

THe American Guiberson was about the size and weight of a P&W Wasp JR. but put out 340HP vrs the Wasp JR's 450HP. IF you rigged a Wasp JR to run on 73 octane gas it would give you 300hp. 

Russians flew some combat missions with Diesel powered 4 engined bombers but the same airframes seem to have been repowered a number of times with different engines.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 31, 2009)

davebender said:


> That sounds good to me.
> 
> Fixing the aviation gasoline shortage cannot be accomplished with any single action. 1943 Germany needs a comprehensive program.
> - Use gliders for training to the maximum extent possible.
> ...


YES !!!!


Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

This poses a production dilema. 

Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Three factory complexes were mass producing the Me-109 during 1943.
2,164 Messerschmitt, Regensburg
2,015 Erla, Liepzig.
2,200 W.N.F. Wiener Neustadt

I believe Me-262 development was at Regensburg. This was moved to a new facility at Obergrammerau after an air raid on 17 August 1943. They could afford to do this as the Me-262 was still waiting for the Jumo 004B engine to be certified production ready.

In this scenerio Germany cannot afford to wait for a new factory complex to be built as the Me-262 enters immediate production powered by Jumo 004A engines. I assume Regensburg will produce Me-262s from 1943 onward rather then Me-109s. This cuts overall Me-109 production by a third.

Do we still introduce the Me-155 during 1943 at the two remaining factory compexes? Or do we stick with Me-109Gs on the assumption the remaining factories will convert to jet production within a year or two?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

You already know my answer. The Me 155 would not have formed much of an advantage so it is not advisable to convert production and lose a couple of months worth of fighter aircraft over it. 

But - and I know this isn't what was specified in the initial post - wouldn't it make much more sense to convert Fw 190 production for the Me 262 ??
The Bf 109 was so damn easy to produce so it would be a shame to give this up. The Fw 190A and D had no use whatsoever once the Me 262 was in production...

Kris


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

Dave asked, _"Do we still introduce the* Me-155* during 1943 at the two remaining 
factory complexes? Or do we stick with Me-109Gs on the assumption the remaining factories 
will convert to jet production within a year or two?" _

*In my opinion, we should convert all Me-109 production over to the Me-155 ASAP.*
How we phase the conversion in, whether it be one line at a time, or one factory 
at a time, is an important detail, *but the critical thing is that we get it done.*

Remember, we are trying to* reestablish--and then maintain--air superiority* literally everywhere. 
The Eastern Front is in crisis, The Allies are operating all across the Med, the 8th Air Force
is growing in Britain, plus, the RAF fighter sweeps across France are a constant nuisance.

The Me-155 would have been *50 mph faster, climbed better, had much better range, was much
better armed *and it *COMPLETELY eliminated* the Me-109's *appalling landing and take-off characteristics. *
(The Me-155 was designed to land on an aircraft carrier after all...)

Dave (intentionally) outlined out the thinking that doomed the Luftwaffe: *"...on the assumption the remaining 
factories will convert to jet production within a year or two?"*

*We need the Me-155 and we need it right now.*

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

> make much more sense to convert Fw 190 production for the Me 262 ??


I thought about that and it sounds logical. However I doubt it would happen. Both Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf would oppose such a proposal. Bronc would need to shoot quite a few people to clear away the opposition. 

Now if we can back up to 1940....
The He-100 wins the RLM contract rather then the Fw-190. This gives the Luftwaffe two inexpensive fighter models, both of which are powered by the reliable and inexpensive DB601 / DB605 engine. The larger BMW801, DB603, Jumo 213 and Jumo 222 engines under development will be reserved for bombers and night fighters. The Me-109 will eventually evolve into the Me-155. The He-100 will also evolve over time.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone wrote: _*"The Bf 109 was so damn easy to produce so it would be a shame to give this up.
The Fw 190A and D had no use whatsoever once the Me 262 was in production..."*_

We're friends Civettone, but this is crazy talk.

By January, 1943 sending *the average German fighter pilot* on a mission in a Bf-109, any kind of mission, on any front, was only marginally better than
sending him on a *suicide mission.** If the takeoff didn't kill him the mission did, and if the mission didn't kill him the landing did. *

By rephrasing your sentence, we are able to see its real essence: *"It would be a shame to end the needless slaughter of our fighter pilots, just when we are trying to rebuild pilot numbers and pilot experience in our fighter units, because the Bf-109 is so damn easy to produce..."*

*The Me-262 was not a dogfighter.* It was a *hit and run slashing attacker* best suited for attacking bombers and when it tried *to mix it* up in low-energy, turning dogfights with Spitfires and P-47's and P-51's *IT DIED.*

The Fw-190 D series (later the Ta-152 series) would have been necessary to complement the Me-262 *in furballs at lower altitudes*, and as we know, to protect it as it landed. Another more nimble jet fighter like the *Ta-183* would have been necessary to replace the Fw-190 D / Ta-152 series AND THEN the Luftwaffe should have continued to build them until the year 2055, because they were so damn cool.

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

So don't turn fight. Use your 100 mph speed advantage and tremendous firepower to make a high speed pass at the enemy. You've got 4 nose mounted 30mm cannon so any hit at all on an enemy aircraft will cause serious damage.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

Bronc said:


> By January, 1943 sending *the average German fighter pilot* on a mission in a Bf-109, any kind of mission, on any front, was only marginally better than
> sending him on a *suicide mission.** If the takeoff didn't kill him the mission did, and if the mission didn't kill him the landing did. *


You did not just say that ...



Bronc said:


> *The Me-262 was not a dogfighter.* It was a *hit and run slashing attacker* best suited for attacking bombers and when it tried *to mix it* up in low-energy, turning dogfights with Spitfires and P-47's and P-51's *IT DIED.*


 You did not just say that ...



Bronc said:


> The Fw-190 D series (later the Ta-152 series) would have been necessary to complement the Me-262 *in furballs at lower altitudes*, and as we know, to protect it as it landed. Another more nimble jet fighter like the *Ta-183* would have been necessary to replace the Fw-190 D / Ta-152 series AND THEN the Luftwaffe should have continued to build them until the year 2055, because they were so damn cool.


You did not just say that ...

This is too much for me. Saying that the Bf 109G was obsolete in January 1943 ?
Saying that the Me 262 was no good against enemy fighters, only bombers ?
Saying the Ta 152 was needed to protect the Me 262 at low altitude ?
Saying the Ta 183 should have been built because it was so ... cool ? 

I need a drink  Anyone else ?

Kris


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

Dave wrote: *"So don't turn fight. Use your 100 mph speed advantage and tremendous firepower to make a high speed pass at the enemy. You've got 4 nose mounted 30mm cannon so any hit at all on an enemy aircraft will cause serious damage." *

And all the *Spitfire*, *P-47* and *P-51* pilots say in unison: *"We know exactly what you're going to try to do... But we ain't gonna let you play that game. We're gonna use our much superior maneuverability to turn and duck out of a Me-262 attack, then we're gonna chase you around and play "dodge the Me-262" until you run out of gas. (Because we're gonna be up here for about 4 hours and you're gonna run out of gas in 45 minutes.) And the second, the instant, you get low on gas, we're gonna jump on you like a chicken on a june bug..."

"Sure, you Me-262 pilots might get one or two of us coming out of the sun, but after that baby, we're gonna be here all day, dodging your superior speed, waiting for you to run out of gas. Because, it's not like you have any Fw-190 D's or Ta-152's or anything to occupy our time.."*

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

1) *By January, 1943 sending the average German fighter pilot on a mission in a Bf-109, any kind of mission, on any front, was only marginally better than sending him on a suicide mission. If the takeoff didn't kill him the mission did, and if the mission didn't kill him the landing did.*

*The Bf-109 circa January, 1943 was a deathtrap. Everyone in the Jagdwaffe knew it then, and everyone should realize it now. *

2) *The Me-262 was not a dogfighter. It was a hit and run slashing attacker best suited for attacking bombers and when it tried to mix it up in low-energy, turning dogfights with Spitfires and P-47's and P-51's IT DIED.*

*The Me-262 couldn't turn, roll, accelerate, or slow down* anyway near a Spitfire, P-47 or P-51 and if you can't turn, roll, accelerate or slow down against an opponent, you only have a hit and run slashing attack to rely on. *(The limitations on the Me-262's dogfighting ability are so well know, they're not even
debatable.) * 

3) But my imprecise writing has led to some confusion. The Luftwaffe should have built the Fw-190 D-13 and Ta-152 C until 2055, because *they* were so cool, not the Ta-183, which was not so much.

Bronc!!


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

This is madness!! You are saying the more manoeuvrable one had the advantage? Try telling that to old those dead Zero pilots who got assacred in boom n zoom attacks by American fighters pilots. 
And why did the world switch to less manoeuvrable jet fighters as soon as the war ended ???
Dodging the Me 262 ... great plan !

And stop saing you will use the Ta 152 to protect the Me 262 bases. They never did though you will read a lot about it ... on the internet. The allies could afford to fly around the air fields because their bases were so close to Germany. They could have done the same with any aircraft as they are ALL vulnerable during landing and take off! But they knew they couldnt catch the Me 262 in flight.

In all the years I have been here this is the most idiotic ever. I am outta this one...
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

I am with Civ on this. How was the 109 obsolete?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

In january '43 the gustav was one of the best fighter available

There are no reason because the 262 starting a manouvring fightning a low velocity (but inexperencied pilot)


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

*Civettone: When your enemy has a distinct advantage over you in one (or more) aspects of the flight
envelope, in fighter combat, you do not play to that strength.* (Not if you want to live anyway.)

Zero vs. P-40 and the Wildcat: The American response to the Zero was NEVER dogfight a Zero. Never. *Don't put yourself at a deadly disadvantage by playing to the enemy's distinct advantage.* Dogfighting a Zero leads to certain death. Use Hit and Run - Zoom and Boom - Slash and Burn tactics. 

*In reply, the Japanese refused to change their tactics to address the only advantage the P-40 and Wildcat had.* (Not counting the incredibly tough construction of the Wildcat.) *That the Japanese were unwilling (unwilling, not unable)* to adapt to Hit and Run - Zoom and Boom - Slash and Burn tactics is well-known and is written and commented on frequently.

The Spitfire's, P-47's and P-51's answer to the 100 mph advantage the Me-262 had was to* play loose, to dodge and maneuver--to play 100% defense--until them speedy bastards run out of gas or try to turn and maneuver, and when that happens, then we jump all over them.*

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Nov 1, 2009)

*And we know for certain what's going to happen in late-1943, 1944 and 1945.*

And based upon this knowledge, if we fail to convert the Luftwaffe's Bf-109's over to the Me-155
in January, 1943 (while we still have a little time) we are going to get sacked, and then fired. *For Heaven's sake's--as consultants--if we don't 
know, or can't see, how badly the Bf-109 was performing much past January 1943, THEN WE SHOULD SHOOT OURSELVES.*

Bronc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *For Heaven's sake's--as consultants--if we don't
> know, or can't see, how badly the Bf-109 was performing much past January 1943, THEN WE SHOULD SHOOT OURSELVES.*
> 
> Bronc



The Bf 109 was not obsolete, nor was it performing bad. You put any aircraft into its place and the outcome is not going to change.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2009)

I am confused, just what super-duper, BV 155 are we talking about here?

THe early proposed carrier plane?

Performance shouldn't be much different than a standard 109G using the same engine. If as good. 

THe attack bomber proposal, neet but not much use as an interceptor. 

THE Bv 155B versions with turbo-chargers?

THE Germans jumped the gun on this one. Perhaps fooled by their own success with the JU 86 Ps and Rs the Germans seemed to be planning on combat at 40,000-50,000ft. The resulting 155Bs would have been dead ducks at 25-35,000ft. According to "Green" which may be outdated, the top speed of 429mph was at 52,490ft. At a mere 39,370 this fell to 404mph and at a more common combat altitude of 32,810 ft speed was only 373mph and it just got slower the lower it went. The huge wing (67 ft span) and almost 420 sq ft wasn't going to help rolling performance with those radiators half way out the wings. Climb might have been just a bit disapointing to at the altites most of the oposition was actually flying at. 

The Bv 155C?
Not really available anywhere near 1943, more like the Spring of 1945.


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

> The Bf 109 was not obsolete, nor was it performing bad.


I agree. However I believe the Me-155 wing with it's wide track landing gear and room for MG151/20 cannon in the wing root is a worthwhile improvement provided it can be done without disrupting production too much. If nothing else the additional firepower makes it more effective vs heavy bombers.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *In reply, the Japanese refused to change their tactics to address the only advantage the P-40 and Wildcat had.* (Not counting the incredibly tough construction of the Wildcat.) *That the Japanese were unwilling (unwilling, not unable)* to adapt to Hit and Run - Zoom and Boom - Slash and Burn tactics is well-known and is written and commented on frequently.



AFAIK (and my know came from this forum) japanese doctrine used energy tatics


----------



## Civettone (Nov 2, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> AFAIK (and my know came from this forum) japanese doctrine used energy tatics


Really? I always thought they used the old dogfight tactics from the days of the biplanes. Hence the importance of turn rate. I associate energy fights with vertical fights, with high speed cuts and dives ... no ??


Shortround, I think bronc is talking about a Me 155 with a new DB 628 (or perhaps DB 603?) engine as he claimed the Me 155 would be a whopping 50 mph faster. If the Me 155 of davebender was to get the enlarged wing and heavier weight of the guns it would be slower than the standard Bf 109. Right dave?


And Bronc, I am not angry with you. But you write outdated stuff which I read years ago and which I have left long behind me. I find it frustrating to fight the old cliches. In a single post you managed to mention three cliches which are terribly irritating for people like me who take learning about WW2 aircraft as a serious matter. It's nothing personal, I just find it a waste of my time trying to discuss this with you. But with all due respect, I mean, 10 years ago I used to write exactly the kind of stuff you are writing now. 

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 2, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Really? I always thought they used the old dogfight tactics from the days of the biplanes. Hence the importance of turn rate. I associate energy fights with vertical fights, with high speed cuts and dives ... no ??



My know came from a JoeB topic unlucky i don't remember what thread,or i have not understand the JoeB topic


----------



## Altea (Nov 2, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I don't think the C3 ...
> Kurfurst had a say about it ... Axis History Forum • View topic - 87 octane fuel vs. 100 octane !
> 
> Kris



Kurfurst said you say... but from

- P.Wilkinson, Aircraft engines of the world, NY 1944. the german C3 has 93 octanes number
- from TsAGI the C3 *it's quoted 94*
- from TsIAM it's *measured at 93*, from soviet CFR test (variable volume cylinder)

So the so called _100 octanes german fuel _ behavior reminds highly questionnable, at least...


----------



## Altea (Nov 2, 2009)

> Actually it is the combination of compression ratio AND boost that requires high octane.
> 
> Think of 2 engines, one with a 7.5 compression ratio and using 1.5 ata of boost and the other 6.0 compresion ratio and 2.0 ata of boost.
> Combining the two factors together gives 11.25 for the first engine and 12.0 for the second. if every thing else is the same they are going to need similar fuel.
> I know it doesn't work exactly like this but I am trying to keep it simple.



Thank's for good common sense.

Just my five cents: There is some compress loss from the supercharger to cylinder, transformed to turbulence losses, that means extra heat...So i would say 10.13 for the first case, 10.8 for secund if you don't mind...

Regards


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2009)

> If the Me 155 of davebender was to get the enlarged wing and heavier weight of the guns it would be slower than the standard Bf 109. Right dave?


That depends on aerodynamic issues. The P-51D was heavier then a Me-109G6 yet it was a bit faster.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 2, 2009)

As the rest of the Bf 109 was left unchanged (perhaps except for a taller tail) )but the wing area increased while the chord did not diminish I find it logical that the speed would decrease.
The P-51 was faster because it had laminar wings, the Monroe effect and a good aerodynamical profile in general.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2009)

The CV version had a greater wing area in order to lower the stall speed, making it easier to land on an aircraft carrier. However nothing requires a land based Me-155 to be exactly the same. It could have clipped wings in an effort to keep the wing area similiar to the Me-109G. You still have wide track landing gear and room in the wing root for a cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2009)

Putting the landing gear out in the wings retracting inwards would require slightly heavier wing structure to handle the load. The heavier armament will increase weight. Performance will not be as good as a standard 109 but perhaps better than a 109 with underwing gondolas?


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2009)

> Performance will not be as good as a standard 109 but perhaps better than a 109 with underwing gondolas?


That's pretty much what we are aiming for. We also improve capability to operate from rough and/or muddy airfields.

Personally I would delete the 2 cowl mounted machineguns. You don't need them if you have 3 x MG151/20 cannon. That will save a bit of weight and possible allow for aerodynamic improvements.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 2, 2009)

Quoted from _*Messerschmitt Bf-109*_ by Robert Grinsell, specifically writing about the
*Bf-109G:*

*"...the increased weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling
characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft extremely hazardous to fly in inclement weather,
especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue, and pilots bailing
out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."*

*Fellars, when your combat fighter pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their airplanes instead of trying
to land them, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT AIRPLANE. PERIOD.*

The *Me-155B* with the *DB-628*: was *50-75 mph faster* than the Bf-109G, was armed with *(3) three 20mm MG-151/20 cannons*, was operating routinely 
in test flights at *50,000 feet*, COMPLETELY ELIMINATED the Me-109's NOTORIOUS takeoff and landing characteristics and it was ready for series production in January 1943.

The RLM chose not to build the Me-155B, but also, and most incredibly, they walked away from the
DB-628 as well...

Bronc


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2009)

*Me-109 G6.* Most common model.
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6,940 lbs Loaded Weight.

*P-51D.* Most common model.
P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7,635 lbs. Empty Weight.
9,200 lbs. Loaded Weight.

As you can see the Me-109G6 was a very light aircraft. It weighed less loaded for combat then the P-51D weighed empty. I suspect the Me-155 also weighed considerably less then a P-51D.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 2, 2009)

The underwing gondalas created a 8 kmh decrease in maximum speed.
Though extra guns are nice for attacking the bombers, I find it unncessary to change Bf 109 production completely to the Me 155. On the front lines they didn't need a fighter with great high altitude performance nor with better armament. 
That's why a standard Bf 109 with removable underwing gondalas was sufficient. 
I suppose that's also why the Germans later went for the Bf 109H with only had the longer wings and the new engine.


Now, one more time about the Me 155B (with the DB 628 ). The Bf 109H was similar as both got an added wing section. 
_
The Bf 109H was an attempt to design a high-altitude fighter to fill a gap in the Luftwaffe inventory left by the failure of the earlier Me 155 and Me 209 projects. The 109H was based on the same fuselage as the Bf 109G. It was to be equipped with a high-altitude pressurized cockpit. The standard 109 wings were lengthened from 9.92m to 13.25m by the addition of a rectangular central section. The Bf-109H-1s were evaluated by the Luftwaffe in France in early 1944. The trials went well, except for the fact that the aircraft demonstrated an unhealthy wing flutter in dives. Tests were conducted on some of these aircraft back in Augsburg, and in April 1944 one lost a wing during a dive. This apparently stalled the program, which was then presently cancelled in favor of the Focke-Wulf Ta-152H. _

I have also read an account by one the pilots who were testing the Bf 109H in France. He thought it was the most idiotic idea ever. But I don't know why he was opposed to it. It could also have been due to the GM-1 and flying at extreme high altitude...

Now as to the DB 628. I have also said this before. The DB 628 was longer. It shifted the centre of gravity in such a way that a redesign of the wing placement was required. This led to even more changes until the design was too altered to still use a standard Bf 109 which was required for production. I have seen the diagrams of the Bf 109H with DB 628. It is quite clear. Also the DB 628 was far from ready. DB only managed to complete the DB 605D and the DB 603A during the war. All other projects failed to reach production. All of this is quite unfortunate because I think the Bf 109 with a DB 628 could have been great. 






http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/cannons-friedrich-15884.html
This thread also showed that the later Bf 109K-6 managed to get two cannons inside the wing, not as gondolas.
Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2009)

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

635 to 660 kph. Me-109F4 Max speed. The German data sheets do not agree.
632 to 664 kph. 652 kph average. Me-109G1 Max speed. 

3 kph. Speed reduction from cowl mounted MG131s. With enlarged cowl made for MG131 installation.
8 kph. Speed reduction from 2 x MG151/20 wing cannon and ammunition. 215 kg additional weight.
12 kph. Speed reduction from non-retractable tailwheel.

652 kph. Me-109G14/U Max speed. 
.....1 x Mk108 3cm engine mounted cannon.
.....2 x MG131 13mm cowl mounted machineguns.
.....2 x MG151/20 wing mounted cannon.
.....DB605 AM engine with MW-50.

It appears to me the Luftwaffe decided the 652 kph / 405 mph max speed of the Me-109G1 was fast enough. Higher HP engines were matched with additional firepower so max speed remained around 652 kph throughout 1942 to 1945. The Me-109G14 has plenty of firepower for knocking down heavy bombers while retaining more then adequate performance vs P-51D escort fighters. All this talk about the Me-109 series falling behind in performance is much ado about nothing.

If I were going to change something....
- Delete the two cowl mounted machineguns. Wiith three cannon you don't need them.
- Keep the retractable tailwheel. This will probably increase aircraft cost slightly.

With both these changes late war Me-109s will be 15 kph / 9 mph faster. A worthwhile performance increase with no drawbacks that I can see.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

Which aspect of performance?

Top straight line speed at the optimum altitude for the engine? Which maybe several thousand feet lower than the optimum altitude for the opposing fighters?

Climb?

Which sufferes much more from weight increases than straight line speed. 

Rolling ability?

Turning ability?

Both wing loading and power loading. The latter helping the fighter sustain speed in a turn.

And of course the ever popular landing and take-off performance. 

Not to mention the 109s heavy controls at high speeds. Not much sense in going really fast if your control forces are so high that you have trouble out manuvereing your oposition. 

Straight line performance is a rather simplistic way of comparing fighters or judging if an aircraft was passed it's prime.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2009)

I think the problem with the 109 when equipped with the wing cannons was more to do with handling in particular the climb, acceleration and the rate of roll. So as long as the bombers were not escorted and you have enough warning to climb to the bombers you were OK.
If they were escorted or you didn't have time then you were in trouble.


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2009)

Perhaps this is part of the reason someone decided 652 kph is fast enough for the Me-109G.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2009)

davebender said:


> Perhaps this is part of the reason someone decided 652 kph is fast enough for the Me-109G.



...which leads to the another question: by what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters? Early or late 1943? Early 1944?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 3, 2009)

we have number of force on stick on 109 and on other fighter for compare it?
imho 109 is in premier league for all the war


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2009)

> what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters?


The original Me-109 design dates to 1934. I think it was outdated by early 1945 when newer generation aircraft like the Ta-152, Me-262, Tempest, Ki-84 and P-51H started to enter service in quantity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> ...which leads to the another question: by what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters? Early or late 1943? Early 1944?



1943 and 1944 certainly not. She was competitive through to the end of the war even in 1945. By 1944 her design had certainly run its course though with much more advanced piston engined aircraft such as the Ta 152, Fw 190D, F8F, etc taking shape.

By 1945 anyhow piston engined aircraft had already reached their pinnacle, with Jet aircraft in service.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2009)

NOW I'm puzzled.
We have a 10 page thread to 'maximize the 109 in January 1943', yet at least two (edit: three) people think that it was a top-notch bird up to the end of war.  
Weren't the F4-U P-47C much better planes during 1943 then a contemporary 109? And much better to save all those pilots, _experten_ novices alike?
Not to mention the 1944 competition (P-51B/D, Tempest, Spit XIV)...


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 3, 2009)

Put number why the other fighters were best of '109 in '43


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

I disagree that the Bf 109 was outdated by 1945. Quite on the contrary, I think the Bf 109 came back with a vengeance with the K-version. The Bf 109 had lagged behind since the end of 1943 with the arrival of the P-47D, P-38J and P-51B/C over Germany. At this point the Bf 109 was at its weakest. It only started to improve after May 1944 with ever better ata's, the AS, AM and ASM engines and the aerodynamical improvements. This culminated in the beginning of 1945 with the Bf 109K with further aerodynamical improvements and up to 2000 hp. At this point it was once again superior to anything the allies could throw against it. It had better speed and/or climb rate than the P-47, P-38, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-3/-9 and La-7 then in action. 

New allied versions were coming up but also the Bf 109K-14 was going to get the new DB 605L engine for better high altitude performance. By then it may no longer have been the best around but was still competitive. I believe it lagged further behind back in late 1943 than it did in 1945.

Handling deteriorated at these high speeds but I have never seen a credible account saying the Bf 109K was no longer handable. Combat aircraft generally become more difficult to fly as long as they get better performance. 

Kris


----------



## Juha (Nov 3, 2009)

Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don’t have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.

P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don’t have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.
> 
> P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better
> 
> Juha



Spit IX with merlin 63+ with +18 boost as you tell has a advantage but no so high to put gustav in 2nd line fighter. (please can give me data on sustained roll rate?)

P-47D-10 was a '44 fighter, the C was for a RAF comparative report inferior to Spit IX.

ADD sorry i confused D-10 with late batch, but early D batch aren't many different to C


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2009)

Until the oil foaming problem was fixed the DB605A could not produce the full 1,475 HP. I think that was the Me-109 low point vs the competition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I disagree that the Bf 109 was outdated by 1945. Quite on the contrary, I think the Bf 109 came back with a vengeance with the K-version. The Bf 109 had lagged behind since the end of 1943 with the arrival of the P-47D, P-38J and P-51B/C over Germany. At this point the Bf 109 was at its weakest. It only started to improve after May 1944 with ever better ata's, the AS, AM and ASM engines and the aerodynamical improvements. This culminated in the beginning of 1945 with the Bf 109K with further aerodynamical improvements and up to 2000 hp. At this point it was once again superior to anything the allies could throw against it. It had better speed and/or climb rate than the P-47, P-38, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-3/-9 and La-7 then in action.
> 
> New allied versions were coming up but also the Bf 109K-14 was going to get the new DB 605L engine for better high altitude performance. By then it may no longer have been the best around but was still competitive. I believe it lagged further behind back in late 1943 than it did in 1945.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. When I said that it had run its course, that can be said of all piston engined aircraft. The dawn of the jet aircraft had arrived.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don’t have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.



IMHO in the context of availability, the rather marginal differences in performance were a non-issue... the Bf 109G was a standard, mainstay type during 1943, practically making up the whole 109 inventory.

The Merlin 66 Spitfire IX was on the other hand, an utmost rarity in Squadron service until 1944. Production output was simply grossly insufficient (ie. in the first six months of 1943 only about 80 were produced in total). The mainstay Spitfire type was still the Mk V, and remained so until early 1944, and by 1943 it was hopelessly outclassed in terms of speed. IIRC even in the summer there were only two Squadrons with the new Merlin 66 Spits in the whole RAF - insignificant, penny pocket numbers while the bulk of Fighter Command was basically at the same disadvantage as the Bf 109G-6s in 1944 against the new Mustang B... being some 50-60 km/h slower, and things got worse especially at altitude. 

It is why the Typhoon, despite its problems, made such a career in 1943... at least it was competitive with German fighters in terms of speed. The Mark V simply wasn't.




> P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better



I am not sure, AFAIK the P-47D did not exceed ~660 km/h speed until the paddle props were added, but that was not until 1944. See the ancient Soviet charts (both curves based on Soviet domestic testing results of captured G-2 and LL P-47D).

BTW imho the performance depicted below is a classic example of the different design philosophies... a huge turbocompound driving a massive radial engine in a gigantic airframe, or a simple inline Vee with less about 2/3s the output, in a small airframe that makes the best use of every single horsepower... funny thing is, at this point the Gustav while having very similiar altitude performance had probably more range than the gas guzzling 47D-10...!


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you. When I said that it had run its course, that can be said of all piston engined aircraft. The dawn of the jet aircraft had arrived.



Agree, too...


----------



## Bronc (Nov 3, 2009)

*This is getting silly.* That the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots *in 1943* were calling----"*calling*" is not the right word, "*BEGGING*----for something
to replace their Bf-109's* is a well known fact* and the fact that *Luftwaffe fighter pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their Bf-109's instead of trying to
land them in bad weather is apparently not compelling evidence for some....* 

So... I suppose... it's time for the *WWII Aircraft Performance Resource Page:*

Click here: WWII Aircraft Performance 

Me-109 G flight tests are here: Me 109 G Flight Tests

A flight comparison Me-109G vs. Spitfire Mk9 is here: Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Comparison of the Me-109G/K vs. Spitfire Mk14 is here: Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

It's a great site with tons of interesting information. *Short story: The Bf-109 G/K was out-classed by EVERYTHING. Not to mention, Luftwaffe 
pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their Bf-109's rather than trying to land them in bad weather.*

Imagine racing against cars that are 30 to 60 mph faster than yours. Go out in your car and let someone pass you going 30 to 60 mph faster than you are. 
The P-47D was 10-20 mph faster than a Bf-109G at sea level for heaven's sake and 60 mph faster at 30,000.

The *Spitfire Mk-14 SPANKED the Bf-109G and OWNED the Bf-109K * (and we have yet to mention the high-boost *P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38K's Tempests, 
Yak's*, and the list goes on and on...)

*Hey!! It's the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots... In case anyone is listening...when the weather is bad, we would rather JUMP OUT of the Bf-109's 
that you keep sending us instead of trying to land them. As in: WE JUMP OUT of them, because JUMPING OUT is safer than trying to land them. 
By the way, has anyone told you how slow they are? STOP S-E-N-D-I-N-G THEM!!
And also: WE DON'T GIVE 2-SH-TS ABOUT HOW EASY AND CHEAP THEY ARE TO BUILD.*

*This conversation became a bona-fide microcosm of the real conversation about the Me-109 series in the RLM!! (And we know how that turned out!!)*

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Nov 3, 2009)

*Kurfurst: Where on the Planet Earth did you find that Performance Comparison Chart?? -- Because dude, it's so wrong it must be some kind of left-over Soviet propaganda or something.*

Look at the *RLM's own performance tests* here: Me 109 G Flight Tests

And look at the REAL Spitfire, P-47 and P-51 numbers here: WWII Aircraft Performance

*Seriously, your chart is so wrong, it must be some kind of Soviet propaganda. What is the source?*

Bronc


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 3, 2009)

Yup, the infamous 'comparison' articles none the less !


----------



## drgondog (Nov 3, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Spit IX with merlin 63+ with +18 boost as you tell has a advantage but no so high to put gustav in 2nd line fighter. (please can give me data on sustained roll rate?)
> 
> P-47D-10 was a '44 fighter, the C was for a RAF comparative report inferior to Spit IX.
> 
> ADD sorry i confused D-10 with late batch, but early D batch aren't many different to C



The 47D-10 was produced in sept 1943. The D-4 and -5 were the first with WI. the -10 and -11 had the paddle blades 

I haven't seen the 109G/K roll rates but it was notorious for very stiff control forces > 250-300 mph. The Mustang and Thunderbolt had relatively light control forces at high speed.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 3, 2009)

*Kurfurst wrote: "Yup, the infamous 'comparison' articles none the less..." *

*Sorry man*, but I'm not going to let you slide on posting *grossly inaccurate *and *intentionally 
distorted Soviet propaganda*, (not distortions of your making--Soviet distortions--and silly ones at that) and then* dissing the RLM's own flight test data*.
Sorry about that.

*You can't duck the RLM's own data* on the Bf-109G/K and you can't ignore the* real and accurate data *on the* P-47D, P-51A/B/C and D. 
(Yes, at low levels, the P-51A OWNED the Bf-109G/K. It freakin' SPANKED them.)* And as far as Spitfires go: Deliveries of the *Spitfire Mk IX *
began in June 1942, and went operational on *28 July 1942.*

*The assertion that: "The mainstay Spitfire type was still the Mk V, and remained so until early 1944" IS C-R-A-Z-Y TALK.*

*By the way,* has anyone mentioned that *when the weather got bad, Bf-109G pilots preferred to JUMP OUT of their airplanes 
instead of d-y-i-n-g in an attempt to land them? As in: THEY WANTED TO JUMP OUT of their aircraft---and made a habit of doing so in bad 
weather-- because JUMPING OUT was SAFER than trying to land a BF-109G.* *Has that been mentioned that yet? Because if so:
WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID??*

*Bronc*


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

Bronc, you are out of line.
Not only are your posts demeaning, you are writing complete nonsense. 

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *By the way,* has anyone mentioned that *when the weather got bad, Bf-109G pilots preferred to JUMP OUT of their airplanes
> instead of d-y-i-n-g in an attempt to land them? As in: THEY WANTED TO JUMP OUT of their aircraft---and made a habit of doing so in bad
> weather-- because JUMPING OUT was SAFER than trying to land a BF-109G.* *Has that been mentioned that yet? Because if so:
> WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID??*
> ...



You will substantiate that outburst or I will ban you for 6 months. The ball is in your court.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You will substantiate that outburst or I will ban you for 6 months. The ball is in your court.



Actually I went back and read some more of this crap.

Bronc - I'm telling you straight up,* you're an idiot*. Do you know that the 109 lacked any type of IFR equipment or any equipment that would enable them to land using early instrument approach equipment. BTW, the same could be said for just about ANY WW2 fighter and more than likely if ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!

Watch yourself Bozo, because I'm ready to plant your silly ass into cyber space and this WILL be my only warning.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

While the 109 was kept competive in straight line speed and in climb it's armament wasn't exactly a strong point. 
While it might have been quite comptitive on the Russian front a single 20mm and 2 weak but fast firing 13mm guns weren't really up to standard in the west by the end of 1943. 
Of course the P-51B's and C's were running a little light in gunpower too. 
Three gun fit might also have been fine on the Russian front against the smaller Russian aircraft (except pehaps for the IL-2 but was increasingly lacking against 4 engined bombers. the change to the MK 108 helped against bombers but hurt against fighters. With only 60 rounds for the main gun combat endurance was rather short, 6 seconds at 600rpm? Just how many firing passes could a pilot who was not an "expert" make per flight? Two?
A lot is made of how cheap the 109 was to build compared to other fighters. It may have been but it might also have been an expensive way to get a single MK 108 cannon and 60 rounds of ammo to within range of a B-17. 
OK it had the two MG 131s but once the MK 108 runs dry who really expects the pilots to attack the bombers with just 2 MG that use lighter, slower bullets than the bombers guns use?

Don't bother bringing up the gunboats, Using single engine fighters that have to be "escorted" by other single engined fighters so they can carry bomber busting armament just proves the point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

I believe that got to be the policy of the German air force when flying Lockheed F-104G's. 

I could be wrong but if not it means that.

1. The Germans hadn't learned anything in 20 years.

or 

2. Lockheed hadn't learned anything in 20 years. 

or

3. Flyboy is right is saying "ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!"


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> While the 109 was kept competive in straight line speed and in climb it's armament wasn't exactly a strong point.
> While it might have been quite comptitive on the Russian front a single 20mm and 2 weak but fast firing 13mm guns weren't really up to standard in the west by the end of 1943.


I have no indication to believe that the armament was insufficient. Perhaps for novice pilots whose gunnery training was seriously inadequate during the last part of the war. Late-war fighters were better armoured though I have no indication that the Bf 109G-6 guns could not bring them down. Plus, much of the Russian fighters were American (P-40, P-39 and especially the very well armoured P-63).




> With only 60 rounds for the main gun combat endurance was rather short, 6 seconds at 600rpm? Just how many firing passes could a pilot who was not an "expert" make per flight? Two?


I have never read of pilots making more than two passes. Usually they just went for one. After that their own formation has been broken and they are too vulnerable to attempt lone attacks on entire bomber formations. 
I seriously doubt the ammunition got depleted before they called it a day...


But of course you're right that the standard armament was insufficient against bombers. That the Germans knew too!
But even the armament of the Fw 190A was considered to be insufficient. That's why they created the R2s.

Kris


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I went back and read some more of this crap.
> 
> Bronc - I'm telling you straight up,* you're an idiot*. Do you know that the 109 lacked any type of IFR equipment or any equipment that would enable them to land using early instrument approach equipment. BTW, the same could be said for just about ANY WW2 fighter and more than likely if ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!



*Most respectfully FlyboyJ : You are missing the point: completely, totally and entirely.*

*Again Most Respectfully:* *The issue has NOTHING *to do with "IFR equipment" or 
"gaining a visual during IFR conditions."* It has EVERYTHING to do with the inherently 
dangerous design of the Bf-109's weak, narrow undercarriage. **And it's not like I'm 
making this up. I have r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y provided sources for everything I say, so it's 
hardly "crap."* *(Also, my position is repeated in E-V-E-R-Y single book ever written on the Bf-109.)*

*I'm sure we all agree that people have a right to have their opinions, but they don't have a 
right to their own made-up facts. I'm stating the facts. The others are stating their opinions. And I'm the 
one about to be banned?*

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

I think the issue has been fleshed out. Both sides have recieved a fair hearing in 
the arena of ideas. *I'm finished trying to convince anyone that the Bf-109's weak,
narrow undercarriage was a major cause of concern that could have been addressed
by the RLM and Luftwaffe* and *I won't be posting any more on it*, because if *Gunther Rall's
comment on the matter wasn't convincing*, and all of those page citations in books couldn't 
do it, and if Robert Grinsell's research about Bf-109G pilots jumping out of their airplanes
because they were *THAT* afraid of the landing characteristics of the Bf-109G, then *NOTHING* is
going to convince them.

*I apologize if I offended anyone.*

So please don't ban me.

Bronc


----------



## Juha (Nov 4, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
Yes, but I choose the LF IX because I have a grap which shows its, 109G-1’s and P-47D-10’s (USAAF figure) speeds alongside 190A-5’s etc speeds. BTW have you info on the fuel Soviets used in their 47D tests.

On production, true but in Aug 43 Merlin 66 Spit production was 100 Spit IXs and 90-95 Mk VIIIs. And LF V was a bit like Soviet fighters, excellent at low level, especially in climb but run out of steam higher up. Even normal Spit Vc +16lb boost seemed to have been almost as fast as 109 G-1 between 2 and 4km altitude after that it lost ground fast.

Vincenzo
In 43 109G wasn’t a 2nd rate fighter but not the best as F-4 has been in early 42. But 109G, even if necessary didn’t bring significant performance advance until G-6AS but that was mostly because of problems with DB 605A.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Nov 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I have no indication to believe that the armament was insufficient. Perhaps for novice pilots whose gunnery training was seriously inadequate during the last part of the war. Late-war fighters were better armoured though I have no indication that the Bf 109G-6 guns could not bring them down. Plus, much of the Russian fighters were American (P-40, P-39 and especially the very well armoured P-63).
> 
> Kris



The fact that soviets had some american latewar fighters does not mean they were used against Luftwaffe.

So on the may *1945, the 1st*...

Only 5 / 1446 P-63 Kingcobra
~ 2 or 3 / 116 Thunderbird
0 / 28 Tomahawk
10 / 1037 Kittihawk 

...were serving in frontline units (so called active army), others being dispatched in rear militar districts, PVO, schools, conservation dumps...

18 planes for 16 112 front line ones is not that much, isnt it?

The main reason was the lack of performance at low heights (from 612 to 636 km/h for serial La-7 with _ 15 min forsage_, 515 km/h only for Kingcobras at SL)

BTW, i agree with you on other points, soviet american fighters as P-40 and P-39 lost some machineguns (mainly in wings) and some internal tanks in order to save weight and make them competitive against Messerschmitts.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 4, 2009)

Wow, less than 20 ?? 
I know the P-40 was mainly used for local air defence (called RVP or something?) and was replaced after 1944. P-63 had better hi alt performance so that would have been a logical choice. 

Altea, do you also have similar figures for 1944??

Kris


----------



## Altea (Nov 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Wow, less than 20 ??



Yes but 95 P-39 K,L,M and 817 P-39Q, 581 Boston, 398 B-25...120 C-47* Night Bombers* in FL units on the same may 1945, the 1st.







> I know the P-40 was mainly used for local air defence (called RVP or something?) and was replaced after 1944. P-63 had better hi alt performance so that would have been a logical choice.


 
so P-40: 10 in front line units, 94 in (rear) mil. disticts, 881 in PVO (anti aircraft defense), 80 on the way = 1065 
P-63: 5, 1313, 54, 94 = 1466 but it had unresolved spin problems, even worse that P-39 with empty guns.



> Altea, do you also have similar figures for 1944??



I don't know, might be. But from the same source "Alekseenko" it doesn't seem that P-40 had an enormous activity in 1944.

:102 planes lost, 14 did not return from mission, 4 shooted down by fighters, 10 by Flak, 3 written off by accidents, 71 w.o. for wear. It' very few for the 10 111 soviet fighters lost in 1944 for all kind of reasons.


----------



## Bug_racer (Nov 4, 2009)

Going back to the original question. What was an easier plane to learn to fly and use effectively , the me109 or fw190 ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2009)

190 without a doubt....


----------



## Altea (Nov 4, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> Going back to the original question. What was an easier plane to learn to fly and use effectively , the me109 or fw190 ?



The 190, with no doubt. But at the same time they were not school planes. Pefromrance and manoeuvrability asked some sacrifices. From *all* soviet tests, (it's to go back to the original question, but not far away...) combat reports and pilot's memor's the 109 was *always* the most dangerous opponent fighter vs fighter. So for the_ Normandy_. 
It had better turn and climb rate than the FW. The FW was tough, better armed, protected and had better roll/dive acceleration capabilities. 

I don't see them _superior_ , but rather _complementary_ to each other.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *Most respectfully FlyboyJ : You are missing the point: completely, totally and entirely.*
> 
> *Again Most Respectfully:* *The issue has NOTHING *to do with "IFR equipment" or
> "gaining a visual during IFR conditions."* It has EVERYTHING to do with the inherently
> ...



And once again your stupidity is apparent - do you know that the track of the 109 and Spit is about the same?????  The Landing gear problem on the 109 has been written about, talked about, debated and discussed - the only reason why any pilot is going to bail out of a perfectly good aircraft is because they can't see the runway or there is an incapacity in bringing the aircraft over the runway.

Now that you've seen the light, you will refrain from any more ignorant outbursts.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Put number why the other fighters were best of '109 in '43



Ah, the numbers...
Since our thread (P-51(D) vs. FW-190D debate) teaches us that few mph advantage means really nothing if one is unable to put those mphs in good use, I'll play the game in accordance to that.

The main differences against Bf-109 for 1943:
F4U-1A had range ruggedness in abundance, much better ground attack capabilities, it was carrier capable; other things are pretty much the same to make a difference
P-47C had the same pluses (not carrier capable); other things as stated for Corsair
F6F-3: same as F4U 
P-38J*: same as P-47C, with even better range
Typhoon: same as P-47C, slightly less durable

My point is that, while all above counted fighters could do what 109 was doing, the opposite was hardly possible. And while a 109 hit by a burst of .50 cal bullets would've been a heap of burned metal, it could not be said for the listed Allied planes.

*actually the *G* version, but it doesn't change what i wrote


----------



## davebender (Nov 4, 2009)

> The fact that soviets had some american latewar fighters does not mean they were used against Luftwaffe.



A-20. 10 Feb 1943
P-39. 15 Apr 1943.
3 x P-39. 5 Jul 1943.
3 x P-39. 17 Aug 1943.
P-39. 19 Aug 1943.
P-39. 20 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Sep 1943.
P-39. 29 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 30 Sep 1943.
P-39. 2 Oct 1943.
P-39. 4 Oct 1943.
3 x P-39. 20 Oct 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Oct 1943.
P-39. 29 Oct 1943. Kill #148 for Erich Hartmann

23 of Erich Hartmann's first 148 kills consisted of U.S. manufactured aircraft. 15.5%. Apparently there were plenty of American manufactured aircraft used in combat on the Russian front.


----------



## davebender (Nov 4, 2009)

The P-47C also had some minuses vs the Me-109G. The Me-109G had superior acceleration, climb and turning circle at most altitudes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?

Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

*Grinsell* was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of *"perfectly good"  overloaded and poorly handling aircraft, 
that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather*. It has to do with the *high wing-loading *on the plane, 
(that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and *it's high sink rate*, 
(that the Spitfire didn't have) and the *disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while 
trying to land.* 

*More from Grinsell:* "Herbert Kaiser, a Luftwaffe pilot with 68 confirmed aerial victories says: *The Bf-109 was not an easy aircraft to fly*. 
It had to be directed from the split-second one gave it gas. *The extrememly narrow tracked under-carriage could not 
fully compensate for the normal tendency of the aircraft to pull to the right... *[...] *Any causual disregard for those rules 
[on taking off] had a result of breaking the flight path and a crash.*

That was taking off, now Kaiser talks about landing.

"*The cardinal rule during landing* was that at the point of touchdown the gear and tail skid had to be oriented in the line of a projected 
roll without any further attempt at directional control. *The sudden, unexpected separation of aerodynamic lift, [high sink rate, 
weak landing gear, uncontrolable roll-out blah blah, blah...]* caused a lot of crashes and *killed a lot of pilots.* [...] ...the increased 
weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft 
extremely hazardous in inclement weather, especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue,
* and pilots bailing out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."*

Kaiser goes on to say the Bf-109G *was way heavy* and in North Africa, *"our performance could be maintained only 
through the constant use of the compressor."*

It's just crazy. *Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff *were the technical consultants on this silly book. 

Just making that one clarification. Please don't ban me.

Bronc


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2009)

Can I ask which book this is?
Thanks


----------



## davebender (Nov 4, 2009)

> Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.


It's worth noting that these guys all scored more kills with the Me-109 then any American fighter pilot has achieved. Evidently the Me-109 had some good points also.


----------



## Juha (Nov 4, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
109G max roll rate, 50lb stick force, was 85deg/sec at 425km/h IAS. That means that it rolled clearly worse than metal aileron clipped wing Spit Mk V at all speeds and clearly worse than normal wing Spit Mk V up to say 410 km/h IAS. There wasn’t so big difference between 410 – 520km/h IAS between 109G and normal wing Spit Mk V. One must also remember that planes were individuals and at least Frise type ailerons used in Spits before Mk 21 were sensitive to rigging errors.

Hello Altea
no P-39Ns in front line units? Maybe because the main difference between N and Q was the wing armament and Soviet pilots often removed the wing armament so maybe Soviets lumped them together under Q?

juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *Grinsell* was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of *"perfectly good"  overloaded and poorly handling aircraft,
> that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather*. It has to do with the *high wing-loading *on the plane,
> (that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and *it's high sink rate*,
> (that the Spitfire didn't have) and the *disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while
> ...



*YOUR OWN WORDS!!!*

*"Grinsell* was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of *"perfectly good"  overloaded and poorly handling aircraft, that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather"*. 

Everything else is nonsense with regards to this thread and the point you were trying to make. It has been reported many times how difficult the -109 was to land and taxi, that's history. You were trying to rub this crap into Kurfurst's face as if this practice was the norm, and now I'm callin you on it.

*At this point I suggest you drop this crap - come up with something a lot more legit to prove your point*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2009)

We all know that the Bf 109 had a narrow track that could cause problems.

However it is not true that pilots would jump out of the Bf 109 because they did not want to land it because of the landing gear. *That is absolute rubbish.* Just an atempt at revisionist history.

The Bf 109 was not the best aircraft of the war, it was however a damn fine aircraft that was competitive to the very end. That is fact...



Bronc said:


> I think the issue has been fleshed out. Both sides have recieved a fair hearing in
> the arena of ideas. *I'm finished trying to convince anyone that the Bf-109's weak,
> narrow undercarriage was a major cause of concern that could have been addressed
> by the RLM and Luftwaffe* and *I won't be posting any more on it*, because if *Gunther Rall's
> ...



I will repeat again. Pilots did not jump out of them because they did not want to land them. There is also no book that will prove that they did so.

Did you also know that the Spit and 109 track is very close to each other. pbfoot one of our members who has regular access to both aircraft actually went and measured them out.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?
> 
> Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.


I completely agree Tomo. The American fighters were far superior to the Bf 109 in terms of range, payload and perhaps also usability. The naval fighters were also more durable. I am not so sure about the P-51 or P-38 being more robust. It could be a cliche as the other American fighters are always depicted as rugged. This itself can be a result of them having radial engines and of the comparison with the fragile Zero fighter. 
Also the Fw 190 is always depicted as more rugged but perhaps this is because it looked that way. The Bf 109 looks quite fragile. But I would like to know if this is true from a construction point of view. Was the Bf 109 structure really less solidly built than that of the Fw 190?? 

But what I wanted to say is that the Bf 109 was inferior to all of these. But when it comes to actual air-to-air combat the difference is less pronounced. The Bf 109, at least the G-10 and K versions were about as good as any other fighter. But again, it always depends on the situation.




Bronc said:


> *Grinsell* was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of *"perfectly good"  overloaded and poorly handling aircraft,
> that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather*. It has to do with the *high wing-loading *on the plane,
> (that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and *it's high sink rate*,
> (that the Spitfire didn't have) and the *disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while
> ...


In fact I have read about pilots jumping out of the aircraft if the weather was bad. But when I read it it was about late-war pilots who had insufficient training. By then it was actually that bad. I can even tell you that when they had to move from one airfield to the other after August 1944 the losses due to take off and landing became appaling: many novice pilots were incapable of safely ferrying their aircraft !
So keep this in mind when you talk about these accidents and non-combat losses. The average pilot got less than 125 hours of flight hours! I also believe this is a main factor as to why the Bf 109 got such a bad reputation.
But remember the link which I gave a few pages back. It showed research done by member Hohun which showed that the Fw 190 had a similar amount of TO/L accidents. These are figures not opinions.

In fact I agree with most of your quotes but you really need to start putting them into perspective. Yes, the Bf 109 wasn't easy to fly. One had to keep certain things in mind. But a properly trained pilot could overcome these in fact simple difficulties and get the most out of his aircraft. Why else was it so succesful? For instance most of the avoidable take off accidents occured because the pilots forgot to lock the tail wheel. That simple.

Yes the Bf 109 did have a high wing loading and this made it difficult to fly. And yet we see a clear evolution towards combat aircraft with ever heavier wing loadings. More difficult to fly but the combat advantages are worth it. That's the way it works. 

I however disagree with the stall characteristics of the Bf 109. Its automatic wing slats were very effective. At low speed the Bf 109 was very easy to fly. Much unlike the P-51 for instance.
Also the part on North Africa I don't understand. They mainly flew with the Bf 109F and the similar G-2. Weight of the Bf 109 hardly increased. They did have engine problems due to the required sand filter though. Perhaps that's what is meant.

Anyway Bronc. The following link is especially for you. I think most of us have seen it already but I guess you haven't. virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
Read it carefully. It shows the vices and problems of the Bf 109 but especially debunks the myths around it.

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?
> 
> Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.



the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).

p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).
> 
> p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage



The first P-47D's entered combat in late June 1943 with the 4th, 56th and 78th FG - so why are we talking about P-47C as primary competition for the 109G in 1943? Most C's were replaced by August/September 1943.

But the 109G was a match for the P-47C or D except at altitudes > 20,000 feet where the P-47 advantages in speed, roll and dive started making a serious difference in choosing a fight with a tactical advantage.


----------



## davebender (Nov 4, 2009)

American fighters were a lot heavier then their German and Japanese counterparts. That degrades performance but increases overall aircraft strength. You've got to shoot away more metal to knock it down.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The first P-47D's entered combat in late June 1943 with the 4th, 56th and 78th FG - so why are we talking about P-47C as primary competition for the 109G in 1943? Most C's were replaced by August/September 1943.
> 
> But the 109G was a match for the P-47C or D except at altitudes > 20,000 feet where the P-47 advantages in speed, roll and dive started making a serious difference in choosing a fight with a tactical advantage.



early D was near to C, the water inition start with D-10 (also if D-4,5,6 can easy upgraded), new propeller from D-22, afaik the water inition start in use in january '44. 
for P-47 maybe best choice altitude over 25k feet


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).
> 
> p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage



109 (and other fighters) needed to have a good range/combet radius since that enables the defenders to cover a greater area, and it enables them not to waste any time to refueling during enemy bomb raid. One of things that (in a nigh fighter niche) was noted against Bf-110 was lack of the combat range, compared with Ju-88. And the 110 had range.
Usability was connected to the ability of P-47 (and other planes from my post about 1943 fighters) to attack ground targets and survive, despite the plethora of AAA.
Durability: P-47 could take much more damage then 109 - a pretty important thing when attacking bomber formations that fire plenty of HMG bullets against you. Moreso if one is short on pilots to fly the defending fighters (Bf-109s in our case).


----------



## davebender (Nov 4, 2009)

Actually I think range was ok. What they needed was better endurance so they could loiter while waiting for the enemy.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> early D was near to C, the water inition start with D-10 (also if D-4,5,6 can easy upgraded), new propeller from D-22, afaik the water inition start in use in january '44.
> for P-47 maybe best choice altitude over 25k feet



Yes, but the -4RA had WI and was entering combat ops in October, 1943 for the first distinctive boost in performance over the C.

The D-4RA and D-5RE had WI installed at factory but it was manually controlled whereas the -10RA and -11RE were automativally controlled WI. IMO the D-10/-11 with the paddle blades, auto WI and CL bomb/fuel tank rack was the first P-47 truly suitable for practical escort work to and past the German Border

The C-2, C-5 and D-1,-2, -3 took some 200 hours to retrofit the manually controlled Water Injection modification.

IIRC, all the D's either had the centerline bomb/fuel tank rack or easily retrofitted wich gave the early D's both WI and longer range over the C, even though the C-2 and C-5 also could be retrofitted in fall 1943.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

double post please delete this


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2009)

Bill, I've chose the main version of each 5 fighters (P-47 -38, F4U, F6F, Typhoon) available in 1943 for the sake of comparison against contemporary Bf-109.

Dave, in my eyes range combat radius are firmly connected with endurance. Again the P-47 comes 1st in our comparison, by a large margin.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Yes, but the -4RA had WI and was entering combat ops in October, 1943 for the first distinctive boost in performance over the C.
> 
> The D-4RA and D-5RE had WI installed at factory but it was manually controlled whereas the -10RA and -11RE were automativally controlled WI. IMO the D-10/-11 with the paddle blades, auto WI and CL bomb/fuel tank rack was the first P-47 truly suitable for practical escort work to and past the German Border
> 
> ...



generally is not so full for my source (Baugher page on P-47), what's your? 

for data on first combat with WI/WEP can you give me more info and source?
(ocotber 1943 it's date for D-10 test on WEP it's strange that test are in same month of first combat use)


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Bill, I've chose the main version of each 5 fighters (P-47 -38, F4U, F6F, Typhoon) available in 1943 for the sake of comparison against contemporary Bf-109.



No the Spitfire?? sure more rapresentative for RAF fighter that Typhoon


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2009)

Sure, the Mk. IX and XII were very competitive performance-wise, esp at 20kft and higher. But these Spits did not have ruggedness and range the other 5 planes from my list possessed.


----------



## JP Vieira (Nov 4, 2009)

Did the synthetic fuel had the caracteristics of the "natural" one? I always thought it was a dead end solution...????


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> generally is not so full for my source (Baugher page on P-47), what's your?
> 
> for data on first combat with WI/WEP can you give me more info and source?
> (ocotber 1943 it's date for D-10 test on WEP it's strange that test are in same month of first combat use)
> ...



Baugher is an excellent source for the production introductions but my primary also sources include "Gabby A Fighter Pilot's Life", MACR's, the 355th FG Histories (micrfilm A0784, A0783, A7083A, B0314, B0313) with all the engineering Sections at end of every month, 353rd FG History, etc.

From the Macr's it looks like the first Loss of a P-47D-5RE was from the 353rd FG on 5th September (42-8475) with 2 more on 15th and then 14th Oct. The 355th lost a P-47D-6RE (42-74667) on 4th October and received its first -4RA on September 9, 1943 and its first -10 on January 3rd, 1944.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Baugher is an excellent source for the production introductions but my primary also sources include "Gabby A Fighter Pilot's Life", MACR's, the 355th FG Histories (micrfilm A0784, A0783, A7083A, B0314, B0313) with all the engineering Sections at end of every month, 353rd FG History, etc.
> 
> From the Macr's it looks like the first Loss of a P-47D-5RE was from the 353rd FG on 5th September (42-8475) with 2 more on 15th and then 14th Oct. The 355th lost a P-47D-6RE (42-74667) on 4th October and received its first -4RA on September 9, 1943 and its first -10 on January 3rd, 1944.



i don't understand what is the source that tell that D-5/D-6 have WEP from factory and not as upgrade (Baugher tell so if i undersdant him)

i've some trouble using this http://www.armyairforces.com/Databases/MACR/tabid/102/Default.aspx and the Baugher serial list
i fond the D-5 lost the 15th (42-8494) but not that lost the 5th, this is not important but i first found first D-11 loss il 30/11/43 (42-75216, 56th group), and an other il 30/12/43 (42-75425, 355th group)), and first D-10 loss the 7/1/44. so anew question why D-11 was delivered before of D-10?


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Anyway Bronc. The following link is especially for you. I think most of us have seen it already but I guess you haven't. virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
> Read it carefully. It shows the vices and problems of the Bf 109 but especially debunks the myths around it.



*Thank you. Actually, before I got verily blasted, I was planning on posting many of the accounts from that site.
So many accounts of crashing on takeoff and landing. And from reading all of them, it appears that the 
Bf-109E/F's were a little safer than the G/K variants.*

Has anyone read *Horrido!*?

In the *paperback version*, on *page 255* is an interesting first-person account by the *237 victory ace*, *Willi Batz*:

(The preface reads: *His second washout will be of interest to students of Me-109 history.)*

*"In Austria near the end of the war we [transferred to] a base that had a bitumen runway. 
Such luxury! For years we had been operating from grass strips near the front. 
The unaccustomed experience of using the bitumen strip played havoc with our group. 
Out of (42) forty-two aircraft, (39) thirty-nine cracked up on landing due to the 
sensitivity of the Me-109 to its brakes and the strange feel and response 
of a solid runway. Only the first three aircraft landed safely."*__

Apparently they were also dangerous to land on a bright, sunny day, at an airport on a paved strip. But enough about the 
Bf-109's undercarriage. _*Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious*_* and discussing it any further 
is going to get me banned.*

I have a new VERY INTERESTING question that is suitable for a new post. (See below.)

Bronc


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *]
> 
> Apparently they were also dangerous to land on a bright, sunny day, at an airport on a paved strip. But enough about the
> Bf-109's undercarriage. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
> ...


*the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

Bronc said:


> [. _*Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious*_* and discussing it any further
> is going to get me banned.*
> 
> Bronc



*Stop being a twit *- the only reason why I jumped on your case was because of your first post and the way you tried to shove this crap into Kurfurst's face. You have a valid discussion, at the same time* there were THOUSANDS of pilots who mastered the -109.*


Stop bolding your posts as if you need attention, you can make your points without being an ass.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase



I wonder. Take Off always seemed to be the moment of truth for me as speed and altitude were low and options limited.

Bad weather is the wildcard between the two circumstances of take off and landings.

I suspect you are right for combat ops simply because the aircraft often experienced battle damage, or was flying for several hours giving a higher statistical probability for a system or component failure..or pilot fatigue or unanticipated weather condition changes


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

1 2) Where did my Avatar come from AND what in the hell is it???

3) If there is an Avatar God out there, will they please replace it with the attached Ta-152 picture?

4) The second picture is of a Bf-109G-5(?) and what I think is a 30mm Mk-108 belly pack.
(I've never seen one of these before.) Now, if we also have a 30 mm Mk-108 firing through the 
hub (motor mount) plus the 30mm belly pack, might we dispense with (permanently remove) 
the two 15mm nose guns and ammo boxes (to save weight) to end up with something much
more lethal than hanging (2) two 20mm MG-151/20's outboard on the wings??

Having (2) two center-line 30mm's hitting right next to each other would be pretty devastating
I think. Tell your pilots that they have about (3) three seconds of ammo for both cannon.
We expect you to make (1) one frontal or diving pass--and only one pass--on each mission. After 
that you can Split-S and run for home, (we want you to get free and clear) but in each pass, you 
have to fire (3) seconds within range and on target. Give us (3) seconds of accurate 30mm
Mk-108 fire on target and then run for home...

Bronc


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

The image is too big to be added as an avatar.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2009)

Picture is much more likely to be a 20mm MG 151 which was expermented with but rejected beause it used different ammo than the engine mounted cannon. electric primed vrs percussion primed.

The 109 never had two 15mmguns, did you mis type 13mm?

Even with a pair of of MK 108 if all that is expected is one 3 second firing pass you have a very expensive interceptor. 
Most late Western fighters having firing times of 12 seconds or more, some with more than 20 seconds. 

You also have the fuel issue. Which is going to take more fuel;

1, doing a head on pass on a plane at the edge (leading or side) of the formation, going past and winding up behind the formation, turning and passing the formation and then turning again for another head on pass (the 109 should have about a 100-120mph speed advantage even without using emergency power) or

2. flying back to the feild, landing, rearming, going to take off power and then climbing back up to 20,000ft ft+.

If number two not only is it not fuel effecient but you need more fighters to get the same number of firing passes per allied attack.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 4, 2009)

I get the 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns and the MG 151 (MG 151/15) confused all the time.
Meant to say 13mm.

It does look like a 20mm belly cannon, but the idea is still the same, what if it was a 30mm?

I'm trying to figure out a way to put more 30mm MK-108 on target. Everyone has heard
the: *"it only took 3 or 4 hits with the MK-108 to down a bomber"* wisdom. What they haven't
heard is how many fired rounds of 30mm it took to get those 3 or 4 on target.

Here is the Luftwaffe chart I have on *MK- 103* 30mm cannon performance: (Don't know the source document.)

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with *50%* certainty if:

*40* rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
*104* rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
*308* rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with *95%* certainty if:

*76* rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
*203* rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
*650* rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters 

Given its rainbow trajectory, I don't think the MK-108 would have any better numbers,
most likely they were worse, much worse.

These numbers are pretty illustrative of what we are seeing in gun camera footage.
From a thousand meters, it took A LOT of shooting at one bomber to bring it down.
(And with 20mm the numbers must have been even worse.) Unless it was flying last
or a straggler, not many bombers got 104, much less 203 rounds fired at it. In the
gun camera film, it looks a lot more like "spray and pray" shooting at the bomber 
formations.

So we are working with the Bf-109G series. *What do we have to do to get
more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?*

Bronc


----------



## Civettone (Nov 5, 2009)

I have read that the blast of the 30mm cannon could damage the prop. They tried it with one or another aircraft but for the life of me I can't remember which... Maybe the Hs 123 or Ju 87? 
But perhaps that was because the muzzle was too close to the prop?

And Bronc, I do not appreciate you taking things out of its context and misusing it for your convictions. We are all here because we want to learn. But providing blatantly distorted information while ignoring any counterevidence kindly provided by others and then complaining how everyone is ignoring you ... ? 
So I hope this last post of yours is a new start 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Nov 5, 2009)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...ftwaffe-cannons-machineguns-topic-6368-5.html



Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

Back to the original question:
The most expedient way to maximize 109 in 1943 is to produce Bf-109Z (yep, here I go again  ). It was to make almost 700km/h, plenty of cannons, and with 2nd crew member radar should've make a good nignt fighter. The second crew member in a day fighter version could be a pupil needing an introduction to combat, while looking no enemy fighter sneek behind for an easy kill. Much harder to destroy, while one crew member could've land the plane if another one is badly wounded, and/or one engine is destroyed. Since 109 is cheap anyway, and produced in numbers, the price would remain reasonable. Moreso since I'd delete the hull MGs and sinchro gear.
All availavle in 1943 with off-the-shelf components.
What's there not to love? 

Hmm...got me thinking about thread coverng other possible twin-hull planes. Yak-1 9, P-40, Hurricane, MC-200 come to mind...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2009)

Bronc said:


> So we are working with the Bf-109G series. *What do we have to do to get
> more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?*
> 
> Bronc



Better training for the pilots?

A better gun sight?

Failing that approach you have two avenues left. 
1. mount the MK 103 for flatter trajectory and less time of flight for a higher percentage of hits but unless you can really speed up development of the motor cannon version over what was done historicly this isn't going to yeild any worthwhile results. and the extra 90kg of weight isn't going to help performance any. 
2. go back to "as opposed to fired at the target" 
Keep the same percentage of hits to rounds fired but just fire more rounds. Barring deveopment of the revolver cannon this means more guns which the 109 has difficulty fitting in.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

Do you think Me-109Z performance would be superior to the Fw-187 when powered by the same engines?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

The performance would've been better for the Zwlling, since it had smaller span wing area, plus Falke had 3 'bodies' (2 engines plus hull) to pirece through air, while Zwilling had only 2. The 109Z with two pilots would've be in further advantage.
Falke would have been more maneuvrable, though.

But main advantage Zwilling has over Falke was that 109 was in large-scale production and use.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2009)

I agree with Tomo, producing a twin engined version of ANY 109 would've given the LW a good heavy fighter without the need for extensive development.

And please forget about the MK 103. There is a reason it was never used large scale: It was expensive,large, heavy, low rate of fire and the increased range is largely academical for obvious reasons.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

Does anyone have production data for the Fw-187? I have no idea as to whether it was dirt cheap like the Me-109 or expensive like the P-38.


----------



## Juha (Nov 5, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
Now Spit F. IX with Merlin 61 and +15lb boost had almost same speed as Bf-109G-1/2 with 1.3 ata up to 5.500m, between 5.500m and 8.000m 109G was clearly faster but above 9.000m Spit was clearly faster

And in fact Typhoon IB was clearly faster than early 109Gs even after take-off and emergency power, 1.42 ata, was allowed to latter in late 43. Typhoon was even faster than Fw 190A-5 at low level so it wasn’t simply “ competitive with German fighters in terms of speed” but simply faster at low level, markedly so when compared to 109G.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Nov 5, 2009)

riacrato said:


> I agree with Tomo, producing a twin engined version of ANY 109 would've given the LW a good heavy fighter without the need for extensive development.
> 
> And please forget about the MK 103. There is a reason it was never used large scale: It was expensive,large, heavy, low rate of fire and the increased range is largely academical for obvious reasons.


Agree on the Bf 109Z. It would have made an excellent Zerstoerer, Jabo and Aufklaerer. The second crew member would definitely have to go though because you need the extra fuel ! That also means that as a night fighter it has to be restricted to an anti-Mosquito fighter. It does not have the range to be the main night fighter. The Me 210C and later Me 410 is a better option here.

Also agree on the MK 103. It was a decent gun but it was heavy and bulky. Given the fact that the average Luftwaffe pilot had mediocre gunnery abilities, a couple of MK 108s shot from close range ws probably better. The Bf 109 could carry 3 MK 108s for a speed reduction of less than 10 kmh.



davebender said:


> Does anyone have production data for the Fw-187? I have no idea as to whether it was dirt cheap like the Me-109 or expensive like the P-38.


That's not really what it is about. The Bf 109 was cheaper than the Falke because it was _already_ in production. Starting the Fw 187 development over again and putting it in production could be a costly move.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

> Bf 109 was cheaper than the Falke because it was already in production.


The Me-109 was cheap right from the beginning because it was designed to be inexpensive to produce. Like everything else it got even cheaper after producing a few thousand copies. 

The P-38 and P-47 were expensive to produce and remained expensive even after being in production for years. Production experience cannot compensate for a design that is inherently difficult to build.

If the Fw-187 was inherently inexpensive then why not place it into mass production? You won't disrupt Me-109 production as they are built by different corporations. Engine supply is not an issue as the Fw-187 is powered by the same inexpensive engines as the Me-109. In my opinion Germany could place the Fw-187 into production during 1940, cancel the Fw-190 program at the same time and do at least as well as what happened historically. But this applies only if the Fw-187 is inherently cheap to mass produce.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

Think that we could agree that Germans had a winner in a shape of FW-187 even before war started, yet allowed it to vanish.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

Yup. 

Cancel the Fw-190 program during 1940. Cancel the problem plagued BMW801 engine program at the same time. The Me-109 / Fw-187 combination can perform all fighter missions until the Me-262 shows up. Put 4 cannon in the nose (i.e. similiar to Me-262) and the Fw-187 will make a fine bomber killer.

When the larger DB603 and Jumo213 engines appear they all go to bombers and night fighters. 

You need to increase production of the existing DB601 / DB605 engine but that's a lot easier and less expensive then designing the BMW801 from scratch and then placing it into production.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2009)

Cancelling the 190 would be pretty nuts. Relying on a single fighter design to carry you through a decade of world war usually is. Building the FW 187 would mean a serious reduction in the availability of bomber engines, or would result in the cancellation of the Bf 110. Which in turn would leave you without a useful night fighter unless you start converting your Ju 88s early again leading to a cut in bomber production. And all that in 1940-42 where you still have massive offensives to support.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2009)

Cancel the 190??? It was a much better machine than the 109 and as mentioned in the beginning of all this, 109 production should of stopped in favor of the 190 and subsequent models as well as the 262.

There's nothing ground breaking about the FW 187. If offered slightly lower wing loading than the Me 110 ad was a few miles an hour slower. In the end it would of been mauled in the same manner the 110 was.


----------



## Altea (Nov 5, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Altea
> no P-39Ns in front line units? Maybe because the main difference between N and Q was the wing armament and Soviet pilots often removed the wing armament so maybe Soviets lumped them together under Q?
> 
> juha



Hello Juha

Really i don't know. It looks like a forgetfulness or a type mismatch from the original article. Even the Q version is quoted as O. I would rather classify the N in the K , L , M category, it was not a new plane in 1945!

But it's only my supposal....


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There's nothing ground breaking about the FW 187. If offered slightly lower wing loading than the Me 110 ad was a few miles an hour slower. In the end it would of been mauled in the same manner the 110 was.


However, FW-187 had 1400HP onboard, against 2200 early Bf-110s had. And 110 with almost 3000HP was not capable for 600km/h in clean configuration.
With DB-601E (same as Bf-109F4 had, for example) on board, the power is almost doubled for FW-187. My guestimate is that speeds well beyond 650km/h would've been easily achievable. Not bad for 1941, with off-the shelf parts.


----------



## Juha (Nov 5, 2009)

Hello Altea
my logic was based on the fact, that botn N and Q had the same version of V-1710 engine, -85 and the only difference betwen N and early Q was the wing armament, without it they were practically same. Q-20 got 4 blade propeller etc.

Tomo
problem with single-seat 2 engine planes was that usually engineproduction was a bottleneck. Also they tended to be bigger than singleseaters.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> However, FW-187 had 1400HP onboard, against 2200 early Bf-110s had. And 110 with almost 3000HP was not capable for 600km/h in clean configuration.
> With DB-601E (same as Bf-109F4 had, for example) on board, the power is almost doubled for FW-187. My guestimate is that speeds well beyond 650km/h would've been easily achievable. Not bad for 1941, with off-the shelf parts.


The top speed of the basic 187 was about 330 mph as flown although one was flown at 395 mph which I could assure you weren’t close to a capable combat aircraft in hat configuration. Just because you put more powerful engines on board doesn't mean you're going to get great advantages in performance, especially on a twin engine aircraft.

The 187 would have cost more than the 109 and 190 just by virtue of its configuration.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

Hi, Juha FLYBOY
Sure thing that twins are bigger then single-seaters, but, since FW-187 replaces Bf-110 that's not an issue.
Of course, the small size of Bf-109 becomes a liability later during the war, when something that was, in the same time, fast, heavily armed, armoured and with a good range was needed to defenend Germany. So the 187 again comes 1st.



> Just because you put more powerful engines on board doesn't mean you're going to get great advantages in performance, especially on a twin engine aircraft.



Fair warning, but when compared what similar-sized, but much heavier P-38 achieved during developmet, my estimate still stands.

The price should've be smaller then for Bf-110/210/410. Again, the main isue for 1943 on was the 'price' of pilot, not of the aircraft.


----------



## Bug_racer (Nov 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> The price should've be smaller then for Bf-110/210/410. Again, the main isue for 1943 on was the 'price' of pilot, not of the aircraft.




Thats why I would be putting emphasis on an aircraft thats easy to fly as well as easy to mass produce !


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

> Relying on a single fighter design


Me-109 + Fw-187 = two fighter designs.




> Building the FW 187 would mean a serious reduction in the availability of bomber engines


What German bomber was powered by DB601 / DB605 engines?




> or would result in the cancellation of the Bf 110.


Good riddance




> Which in turn would leave you without a useful night fighter


The Ju-88 series night fighters have shot down more enemy bombers at night then any other aircraft type in history. That's useful enough for me.




> unless you start converting your Ju 88s early again leading to a cut in bomber production.


The former Me-110 factory is sitting idle. In this scenerio it will now produce Ju-88Cs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Fair warning, but when compared what similar-sized, but much heavier P-38 achieved during developmet, my estimate still stands.


And you haven't considered a more advanced airframe, better power loading and an over all more advanced airframe. Not only was the P-38 faster, it had a service ceiling almost 10,000 feet higher.




tomo pauk said:


> The price should've be smaller then for Bf-110/210/410. Again, the main isue for 1943 on was the 'price' of pilot, not of the aircraft.


While I could agree, I'm sure the LW would look at cost and see what advanced aircraft was more cost effective to produce. If 10 187s cost as much as 10 Ta 152s, I think the decision would be obvious.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Fair warning, but when compared what similar-sized, but much heavier P-38 achieved during developmet, my estimate still stands.



When doing these estimates please try to factor in not only the weight of the larger engines but the large cooleant radiators, the larger propellers, the larger cowls and etc. Also factor in the larger fuel tanks to feed the larger engines. 
The much heavier P-38 also carried a much heavier armament and achieved it's performance, in part because of it's turbos, it's over 400mph speed were achieved over 20,000ft for the most part but some later models were still good for 400mph at 35,000ft. 

Please note that the 395mph speed of the FW 187 was achieved using a "surface evaporative cooling system" which, while used by many race planes going back to the 20's was never used on service combat planes for good reason.

I actually like the FW 187 and wonder what it could have done with uprated JUMO 210s but turning it into a 400mph, heavily armed fighter might be more difficult than it first appears.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> What German bomber was powered by DB601 / DB605 engines?



Try the He 111B, D, J, and P models. granted they were made in small numbers but it was at the 1937-39 time frame when development of the FW 187 was going on and production decisions had to be made.
About 100 Do 215 bomber/recon aircraft also used the DB 601. And, of course, the Bf 110 versions used as fast bombers which would have been a bit more difficult with the smaller FW 187 airframe. 
THe Me 210-410 series did have a bomb bay so what are they really?




davebender said:


> Good riddance
> The Ju-88 series night fighters have shot down more enemy bombers at night then any other aircraft type in history. That's useful enough for me.
> The former Me-110 factory is sitting idle. In this scenerio it will now produce Ju-88Cs



Perhaps but the JU 88s are going to be more expensive, you don't get an extra 8,000lb of airplane for free. THe early JU 88C night fighters also don't perform quite as well as the Bf 110s.

How many of these JU 88s were powered by BMW 801s which you have canceled?

All these plans would have to start being put into place in 1938-39


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

> If 10 187s cost as much as 10 Ta 152s, I think the decision would be obvious.


Are you suggesting Germany should have the Ta-152 production ready during 1940, allowing a comparison with the Fw-187?


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

The Do-215 was produced in limited quantities for export. It has nothing to do with aircraft mass produced for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> Are you suggesting Germany should have the Ta-152 production ready during 1940, allowing a comparison with the Fw-187?



No, I'm saying the 187 and by 1943 the -109 were a waste of time and resources. I'd be pumping out Ta-152s, Me-262s like there was no tomorrow.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> The Do-215 was produced in limited quantities for export. It has nothing to do with aircraft mass produced for the Luftwaffe.



This might be news to the Luftwaffe. While two prototypes were demonstrated to the Yugoslav Air Force they didn't buy any and the 18 ordered by Sweden were embargoed and issued to the Luftwaffe as B-0 and B-1 models. Dornier was ordered to continue production and planes were produced at a low rate until the 101st airframe came of the line in early 1941. 
Now two did go to Russia and in 1942 4 were transferred to the Hungarian air Force but that does leave 99-95 that saw service with the Luftwaffe. Maybe not mass produced but certainly used in larger numbers than many other types of German aircraft that get a lot more press.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm with Davebender on this one. I can understand why the Fw 187 wasn't chosen for production back in the late 30s as the Bf 110 was considered to be sufficient and already in production. But if the Fw 187 had been chosen it would have given the Germans a massive advantage.
What was the Fw 190 about? Basically a fighter with a radial engine. That's the reason of its existence. I have read Flyboyj saying the Fw 190 was better than the Bf 109. Yet the figures and performance reports do not support this. And the personal accounts of Luftwaffe pilots show conflicting information. Some preferred the Fw 190 some the Bf 109. But all in all, one can conclude that both were rather similar in air combat performance. 
So sure it makes sense to bet on both a radial as an inline engine just like the Americans and Russians did. But there is also an answer for that: the Bf 109X which showed good performance. One can produce both versions simultaneously with hardly any extra costs. 
Let's be honest about this? What was the real value of the Fw 190? What could it do what a Bf 109 couldn't? I can come up with one: high-speed ground attacks. And this was a secondary task which the Fw 187 could also perform. 

Now, what I really want to add to this debate is the following. When Kurt Tank was given the order to develop a high altitude fighter he didn't start with the Ta 152H right away. His first thought was to take up the Fw 187 as he believed it would have taken a twin-engined fighter to get the perfornances needed. So back in 1943 Kurt Tank still thought the Fw 187 as a viable alternative. 
I know we shouldn't get carried away by the Fw 187. It may have been fast and quite manoeuvrable but what would it have been like when fitted with Db 601s or even 605s ?? Some people put it in the 700+ kmh section but I don't know about that. On the other hand, with two DB 605s we are actually seeing TWICE the engine power of the one with two Jumo 210s. Given the Fw 187 better armament and armour I still see it way above 650 kmh. 

It was tested with two DB 600s which means it could easily take two DB 601s and probably two DB 605s. The DB 603 would be too much though!

What we got then is an aircraft with unprecedented climb rate and possibly the fastest fighter aircraft until the arrival of the P-47 in 1943. But until 1944 it would be a heavy fighter which would be the main bomber interceptor and the main medium range reconaissance aircraft and also an important fighter bomber and night fighter. It would have been too small to house all the electronics but until the arrival of the Lichtenstein equipment it would have been an excellent night fighter. By saving BMW 801s enough Ju 88R/Gs could be built. But yes, a new dedicated night fighter would be needed after 1942.

But as Tank till looked at the Fw 197 as late as 1943 it seems that the design was still viable until 1944/1945. Or until the arrival of the Me 262 

Kris


----------



## riacrato (Nov 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> Me-109 + Fw-187 = two fighter designs.


More like one fighter + one heavy fighter. What if you run into development problems with the 109 (what actually kind of happened).



> What German bomber was powered by DB601 / DB605 engines?


FW 187 A-0 were powered by Jumo 210.




> Good riddance
> 
> 
> 
> The Ju-88 series night fighters have shot down more enemy bombers at night then any other aircraft type in history. That's useful enough for me.


First of all I think Me 110 shot down more bombers overall, but I'm no expert. Please someone with the knowledge shed some light into this.





> The former Me-110 factory is sitting idle. In this scenerio it will now produce Ju-88Cs.


Which is a much larger more expensive airframe and not necessarily needed in 1940. So you significantly increased production costs for your night fighter and did the same for your daytime fighter force.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No, I'm saying the 187 and by 1943 the -109 were a waste of time and resources. I'd be pumping out Ta-152s, Me-262s like there was no tomorrow.



I am with Flyboyj on this. If you have the right tools then stick with them and keep it simple. Any prop twin is going to be at risk from the latest single engined fighters and with the Ta-152 and the Me262 you have the right designs.
Then churn them out as quickly as possible. 

The Me109 was past its best and the FW187 was 
a) unknown.
b) needed development and 
c) didn't have the performance edge to dominate the sky.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you haven't considered a more advanced airframe, better power loading and an over all more advanced airframe. Not only was the P-38 faster, it had a service ceiling almost 10,000 feet higher.
> 
> *What P-38 had was double the horse power. FW-187 with 2 x DB-601 (= 2200 to 2700 HP) wold've been more than a match for contemporary versions of P-38, both speed- and altitude-wise.
> *
> ...



.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> When doing these estimates please try to factor in not only the weight of the larger engines but the large cooleant radiators, the larger propellers, the larger cowls and etc. Also factor in the larger fuel tanks to feed the larger engines.
> 
> The much heavier P-38 also carried a much heavier armament and achieved it's performance, in part because of it's turbos, it's over 400mph speed were achieved over 20,000ft for the most part but some later models were still good for 400mph at 35,000ft.
> 
> ...



Jumo 210 would disappear before BoB if I was in charge


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

> No, I'm saying the 187 and by 1943 the -109 were a waste of time and resources. I'd be pumping out Ta-152s, Me-262s like there was no tomorrow.


I agree if we are only going back to January 1943. By that point in time the Fw-190 and BMW801 engine are already in mass production.

I am suggesting the Fw-187 as an alternative path if we can go back to January 1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

The YP-38 was about 3,000lbs heavier not 4,000lbs. that is empty weight.

It is quite likely that niether plane had armor or self sealing tanks. 

Changing from Jumo 210s to DB 601s is going to add around 280lbs per engine, dry weight. It could easily be another 100lbs per propellor and so on for the cowlings, engine oil, radiators and so on. does it equel 3000lbs?
No but then we haven't doubled the engine power either. Just gone from 700hp to 1150hp. and at altitudes under 20,000ft. 
The P-38 (early versions) could keep making 1150hp all the way to 25,000ft. Later versions could make 1100hp at 32500-34000ft at 2600rpm (high speed cruise). of course it took the heavy, bulky turbo-charger system to do it. 
What altitude did you want the FW 187 to fight at?

"Since I was never fond to evaporative cooling, the up-engined FW-187 would've used regular one."

Yep, but since they used that system to get less drag (more speed) it means that the plane with a regular system is slower. 

And then we get to the CG and load factor problems. Most of the weight is in front of the CG which requires shifting items of equipment and/or ballast and/or a rear fuselage stretch to balance things out. Not impossiable but not done at zero cost to performance. Did the FW 187 V6 have any guns or did the lack of armament help the CG issue?

Load factor. what was the load factor of the original design? just for illistrations sake let's say the FW 187 had a load factor of 7 'G's. at 11,000lbs. Now if we up the weight to 12,000lbs the load factor drops to about 6.4 'G's and at 13,000lbs it drops to 5.92 'G's. 

Now maybe the FW 187 had a reserve of strength and doesn't need any beefed up structure and maybe there is no reserve of strength. 

By the way, The P-38 carried 992lbs worth of guns and ammo. Heavy armament usually means heavy airplanes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> What P-38 had was double the horse power. FW-187 with 2 x DB-601 (= 2200 to 2700 HP) wold've been more than a match for contemporary versions of P-38, both speed- and altitude-wise.


 Not really - as stated, just because you bolt on a more powerful engine doesn't always mean you're getting great gains in performance. Weight, systems, airframe aerodynamics have to be considered. 



tomo pauk said:


> Ta-152 is not a contender here, since it was manufactured in 1945.



Actually it was around in 1944 and "could have" been available a lot sooner.


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

The original 1940 version would be primarily a bomber escort. Therefore it will operate at the same height as He-111s and Ju-88s. 

Around 1943 a bomber killer version would appear. This would have engines rated for high altitude and 4 nose mounted cannon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The YP-38 was about 3,000lbs heavier not 4,000lbs. that is empty weight.
> 
> *Almost 1,5 tons is still a pretty big difference.*
> 
> ...



.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> The original 1940 version would be primarily a bomber escort. Therefore it will operate at the same height as He-111s and Ju-88s.
> 
> Around 1943 a bomber killer version would appear. This would have engines rated for high altitude and 4 nose mounted cannon.



Would have, should have - by 43' you were better off going with a single engine fighter that could be produced quickly and had the maneuverability and performance to kill bombers and deal with fighters. The Fw 190 was the prime example and history shows us it had the armament to do the job. Additionally it didn't have the nasty landing habits of the 109.

A twin taildragger bring on other situations - engine out emergency procedures required additional training (this was experienced by the AAF with the P-38).


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

Just pointing out that the P-38 comparison is not quite as simple as it first appears.

And while the power has gone up by a very large amount and you will get a very good increase over the base FW 187 the question is will you get enough. Or do you get a 370-380mph fighter at 20,000ft. 

If you use the extra power you will use extra fuel. The early P-38s had tankage for about 400 gallons. This dropped to 300 gallons with the introduction of self sealing tanks. 

The base Bf 110C carried 280IMP gal of fuel (2100pounds) for the same engines and was soon fitted with a varity of extra fuel tank schemes to extend range. Granted the smaller FW 187 will cruise faster and further on the same amount of fuel compared to the 110 but still? one 110 arangement ws another 121IMP gal fitted in aux tanks IN the outer wings over another 900lbs of fuel NOT including tanks. Of course the 110 did have much bigger wings to both fit fuel in and to carry the load. 

There are always trade offs. 
Like ammo. While the FW 187 and the Bf 110 both carried the same nominal armament the 110 carried 180 rpg for it's cannon. It was able to do this by having one of the crewmen change the 60 round drums. If you want the FW 187 to be a single seat fighter then the early versions have 60 rpg for the 20mm guns unless you can come up with a new feed system for the guns. And we don't know if the FW 187 carried the 1000rpg for the MG 17s that the 110 did. 

And more trade-offs.

"From 0 to 30 000ft?"

It is the last 5,000 ft that are the problem. While a twin DB 601 powered plane might be able to fight as well as anything else at 25,000-30,000 in 1940-42 by early 43 the supercharger system just hasn't kept up with the British Merlin or the American turbos.

I made a mistake on the weight of the P-38 armament 

It is more like 1335lbs


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

> better off going with a single engine fighter that could be produced quickly


That certainly is not the Fw-190. Development began during the fall of 1937. By January 1943 (over 5 years) a total of about 2,000 Fw-190s have been produced and the aircraft still has serious teething problems relating to the BMW801 engine.

If you want an additional single engine fighter type that can be produced quickly and at low cost I recommend the He-100. Like the Fw-187 it was production ready in 1940 and is powered by the inexpensive DB601 / DB605 engine. It will not interfere with Me-109 production as the He-100 would be built at a Heinkel factory.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Would have, should have - by 43' you were better off going with a single engine fighter that could be produced quickly and had the maneuverability and performance to kill bombers and deal with fighters. The Fw 190 was the prime example and history shows us it had the armament to do the job. Additionally it didn't have the nasty landing habits of the 109.


I still would like to know why you consider the Fw 190 so superior? Plus, Hohun already showed that the Fw 190s had a similar amount of take off and landing accidents as the Bf 109. 
As to the Fw 190 as a bomber interceptor ... the Bf 109 could carry 3 MK 108s while the Fw 190 could carry 2 MK 108s and 2 MG 151/20s. But most importantly, the Fw 190 failed to perform at the altitude of the B-17s! And when they did get a new engine for the Fw 190, they dropped the two outboard cannons.

And the Ta 152 wasn't around in 1944. Just because Tank was working on a prototype doesn't mean it was anywhere near ready. The Jumo 213E was not operational until early 1945. One cannot simply say that engine could have been available sooner. That reminds me of those people who say that if all priority would have gone into the Me 262 it could have been the standard fighter by 1943. It doesn't work that way.


I agree with Shortround that making the Fw 187 into an interceptor is not as easy as it seems. Though if it had been given a normal development it could probably have been developed into one, or even into a real night fighter. Just see how other fighter designs had evolved. From the Bf 109A till K, from the Fw 190A till Ta 152, from the Ju 88 to Ju 388.

Kris


----------



## riacrato (Nov 6, 2009)

IIRC the underwing MK 108 pods were never actually fitted to Me 109s in combat. Moreover the Fw had a heavy armament by default. Add that extra weaponry to a 109 and you significantly decrease its performance. Come on, we all know the 190 was way superior to the 109 as a bomber interceptor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> That certainly is not the Fw-190. Development began during the fall of 1937. By January 1943 (over 5 years) a total of about 2,000 Fw-190s have been produced and the aircraft still has serious teething problems relating to the BMW801 engine.
> 
> If you want an additional single engine fighter type that can be produced quickly and at low cost I recommend the He-100. Like the Fw-187 it was production ready in 1940 and is powered by the inexpensive DB601 / DB605 engine. It will not interfere with Me-109 production as the He-100 would be built at a Heinkel factory.



The solution to the 109 problem is not going to be a plane that has most of the problems of the 109 only more so. 
Granted the He 100 would probably been a bit easier to land and take off in some ways. wider track undercarrage and all that.
But it achieved a good part of it's performance by being smaller than the 109. 
Since a good number of the 109s problems later in it's career stem from it's size I anm not sure how adopting an even smaller airframe solves any of them.

The He 100 was armed with a 20mm FF through the prop which didn't work on the service 109s all that well and a one MG 17 in each wing root. With little or no room in the outer wings this doesn't look good for alternative armament fits early in the He 100s service. 
Maybe you can stuff MG 131s into the wing root WHEN they become available but that doesn't help things in 1941 much. Yes you can probably fit the MG 151 into the engine but again when does that become available?
so in 1942 sometime you can actually get something approaching effective anti-fighter armament into the He 100 (a single MG 151 and a pair of MG 131s) but since this isn't an effective anti-bomber armament what have you gained. 
The He 100 won't really hold much more fuel so any advantage in range is just what the lower drag gives you. 
Can you stuff the MW 50 tanks or Nitrous into the smaller airframe? And without the Nitrous why should the He 100 perform any better at altitude than the 109?

Since the Germans historicly had a SHORTAGE of DB engines in the early part of the war which did curtail a number of programs just where are all these cheap, easy to produce DB engines coming from?

It might help if a timeline was established as to just which versions of which engines were available when. 

Otherwise there may (or maynot) be a gap in between late 1942 and 1944 when the only engine for ANY use over 1500hp is the DB 603 if the BMW is cut from production.
How long would it take to retool the BMW factory from radial production to inline engine production?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 6, 2009)

riacrato said:


> IIRC the underwing MK 108 pods were never actually fitted to Me 109s in combat. Moreover the Fw had a heavy armament by default. Add that extra weaponry to a 109 and you significantly decrease its performance. Come on, we all know the 190 was way superior to the 109 as a bomber interceptor.


I read Erich saying something similar to the R4 gunpods. If it is like this it is hard to understand why or how. These pods were not bigger than the R6 pods and also the weight was not that much of a problem.

The standard 190 might have had better armament but in no way can it be considered to be a better interceptor! Its BMW engine performance dropped drastically at higher altitude!




Shortround6 said:


> The solution to the 109 problem is not going to be a plane that has most of the problems of the 109 only more so.
> Granted the He 100 would probably been a bit easier to land and take off in some ways. wider track undercarrage and all that.
> But it achieved a good part of it's performance by being smaller than the 109.
> Since a good number of the 109s problems later in it's career stem from it's size I anm not sure how adopting an even smaller airframe solves any of them.
> ...


I agree, The He 100 had less development potential than the Bf 109. Also, using the same engine means you are completely relying on one engine which is just as dangerous as relying on one fighter aircraft. 
So for that reason I would definitely continue the development of the Fw 190 and even put it into production. BUT only as a back up solution in case the Bf 109 or DB 600 series would run into serious development problems. Production emphasis must lie at one aircraft and engine!
So that is also the similar story with the He 100. I don't think anyone is really saying both the Bf 109 and He 100 should be taken in full scale production. They are too similar for that.

The Fw 187 is different though as it performed a different set of tasks: escort, night fighter, Jabo and heavy interceptor. Basically replacing the Bf 110. 
But it is clear that the Fw 187 had to go through many changes just like the Bf 109 if it wanted to remain competitive and usable (especially as a night fighter). So the Fw 187 of 1943/1944 may well be a totally different aircraft than that of 1938. Just like the Bf 109K had hardly anything anymore in common with the Bf 109A.
Perhaps it would have evolved into an aircraft looking like the Ta 154?

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> That certainly is not the Fw-190. Development began during the fall of 1937. By January 1943 (over 5 years) a total of about 2,000 Fw-190s have been produced and the aircraft still has serious teething problems relating to the BMW801 engine.



I am not sure if that is a good way to decide if the Fw 190 was easier or harder to build than any other fighter.

Lets make some comparisons here between the Bf 109 and the Fw 190.

*Time from drawing board to first flight.*

Bf 109 - Late 1933 (it was fall of 1933 when the RLM issued Specs) to 29 may 1935

Fw 190 Late 1937 (it was in the fall of 1937 that the RLM issued Specs) to 1 June 1939 (first flight)

*Both roughly 2 years to develop the first prototype.* The Bf 109 took a little less time, because it was until 1934 that the Willy began design on what seriously would become the Bf 109.

*Time from first flight to Production/Introduction to front line service.*

Bf 109 - 29 May 1935 to 1937

Fw 190 - 1 June 1939 to August 1941

*That means that both aircraft required about 2 years from first flight to introduction.*

* Average number produced per year since introduction (not including prototypes).*

Bf 109 - 33,984 built from 1937 to 1945. That makes an average of 4248 per year.

Fw 190 - 20,000 (approx.) from 1941 to 1945. That makes an average of 5000 per year.

Technically more Fw 190s were produced per year since its introduction than the Bf 109. So how was the Fw 190 more difficult to build than the Bf 109?

Don't take me wrong, my little breakdown above is not really accurate or an accurate way of deciding which was more difficult. My point only being that the development time of an aircraft is not an indication of the difficulty of the production of an aircraft. *There are just too many factors that come into play.*


----------



## Njaco (Nov 6, 2009)

Which AC was easier or more difficult to learn to fly in? Being that the training of pilots by '43 was starting to reduce in time, what ircraft would be easier to transition too? Would that be a factor in which is built?


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2009)

There in a nutshell you have the problem at high altitude. Without a bomber escort the 109 with the extra guns made an effective bomber destroyer and the FW190 still had enough performance to attack the bombers. With escort fighters, both were very vulnerable. The only option being to take off the extra guns on the 109 which left you with a poor bomber interceptor and a fighter that was at best no better than the escorts. 

The Germans didn't have a reply unless you either go for broke on the ME262 or concentrate on sorting out the 190 for altitude I believe the FW 190 A10 was dropped due to different priorities.


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

> The He 100 had less development potential than the Bf 109.


I agree. I consider the Me-109 overall superior to the He-100. I'm just pointing out that if Germany wants a second fighter type during 1940 the He-100 is available whereas the Fw-190 is still two years in the future. In fact as of 1940 RLM does not know whether the BMW801 engine will ever work properly. The BMW801 design could end up on the scrap heap as happened to the Jumo222 and many other engine prototypes. 

My preferred choice would be to mass produce the Fw-187 beginning during 1940 and fund continued development of the aircraft. You need to build another DB601 engine factory but that's much less risky then creating a new engine design.

Focke-Wulf does have the option to continue development of the Fw-190 airframe powered by the DB601 engine. This would be upgraded to the DB603, Jumo213 or Jumo222 when one of those engines enters mass production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

The Germans were fighting on two fronts from the summer of 1941 on. Just because the Fw 190 couldn't quite fight at the altitudes of some of the western fighters doesn't mean it wasn't a very valuable aircraft on the Eastern front. The vast majority of Soviet aircraft ran out of breath at altitudes lower than the FW 190.

The TA 154 wound up weighing around 70% more than the FW 187.

If what is wanted is a 3500hp, 19,000-20,000lb two seat fighter isn't it better to just design one rather than trying to convert a 1400-2000hp, 11,000lb single seat fighter?

Comparing the Fw 187 to the Bf 110 at different tasks.

Escort: quite probably better. After all it could hardly be worse, and most German bombers weren't that long ranged anyway.

Night fighter: I would have to give this one to the 110, without a total redesign of the fuselage there just isn't enough room in the 187 for the radar and electronics.

Jabo: another mark for the 110. The big wing means the ability to operate at higher weights and with some 110s carring a pair of 1100lb bombs AND drop tanks the smaller 187 might be hard pressed to equel it. Or getting out of small muddy fields with a lighter load might go to the 110.

Heavy interceptor. Back to the 187 for this one. the extra space and crewmen aren't needed for this mission and the smaller size means better performance and a smaller target. 

Could a upgraded Fw 187 been useful?

Of course, but again size does matter and small airframes ussually aren't as adaptable as large airframes so for any job requiring the extra size the FW 187 might not have done as well as the Bf 110. 

Of course if "Willy" and the boys hadn't screwed up so bad on the 210 the 110 might have just faded away. 
But the 210 is also a cautionary tale about how areodynamics wasn't as well understood at the time and making major changes to an aircraft had elements of risk. A new forward fuselage might work out fine or it might affect airflow so that the modified aircraft becomes an evil brute. Betting that one basic design can be adopted to various roles in the future is a long shot gamble.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 6, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Technically more Fw 190s were produced per year since its introduction than the Bf 109. So how was the Fw 190 more difficult to build than the Bf 109?
> 
> Don't take me wrong, my little breakdown above is not really accurate or an accurate way of deciding which was more difficult. My point only being that the development time of an aircraft is not an indication of the difficulty of the production of an aircraft. *There are just too many factors that come into play.*



About man hours required in year and after a production of n-number of aircraft - FW 190, Ju 88, Bf 109:


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Of course if "Willy" and the boys hadn't screwed up so bad on the 210 the 110 might have just faded away.



AFAIK Willy and co. didn't screw up on the 210. They knew the aircraft had bugs to be ironed out (which were, eventually), but the RLM pressed hard for the production, before it could be fully developed. In any case, it was the biggest fiasco for Willy M, the businessman.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2009)

In early 1943, the German leaders had zero idea regarding the upcoming disaster the Mustang would bring to the defense of Germany. They rightly concluded that they could meet the daylight threat from the 8th AF with the inventory on hand and felt no sense of urgency in building a much better high altitude interceptor.

The Fw 190A was a superb bomber killer, better than the 109 and it was doing a very good job on unescorted B-17/B-24's where the drop off in performance was not critical as a bomber attacker.

So the question arises, "what in early 1943" drives the LW to upgrade either the 190 or 109 when they believed no high performance fighter would ever have the range to challenge the LW over Germany?

I submit - Nothing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. I consider the Me-109 overall superior to the He-100. I'm just pointing out that if Germany wants a second fighter type during 1940 the He-100 is available whereas the Fw-190 is still two years in the future. In fact as of 1940 RLM does not know whether the BMW801 engine will ever work properly.



Without a time traveler the RLM does not know that the BMW 139 will be a complete turkey.
What they do know at the time is that they are at least two years away from getting a substantial increase in power from the liquid cooled V-12s leaving BMW as the only game in town for a 1500+ class engine in the near future. 
BMW then changes to the 801 and FW scrambles to adapt. The resulting "easy" conversion (after all it is radial to radial, right) entailed restressing the entire airframe, moving the cockpit back 6 in for CG reasons even though an armour plate was installed behind the pilots seat. After all was said and done the plane had grown 25% in weight from the BMW 139 version and required a new wing of over 21% more area to restore flying qualities. 

Creating factories out of thin air doesn't really work in real life.

Even in the US in 1940-41 Allison was short over 800 machine tools to fit into existing factory space and was listed about 500 in priority out of all american companies. 

P&W was more than a little miffed when 6 Sidestrand centerless grinders destined for their Kansas city plant would up on an Ocean liner for priority delivery to Napier for Saber production 

It can take a year from ground breaking until first symbolic "production" engine makes it out the door and a number of months after that until anywhere near full production is reached.
Less risky than a totally new engine but then the BMW 801 was little more than a rather tightly cowled 14cylinder radial. No trick superchargers or sleeve valves or 42 cylinders or any other real weirdness.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2009)

Re Drgondog's posting, A fair point I admit. 
The only reply I could give was that they knew that the USAAF Bombers were going to come in at altitude and that they had had inflicted heavy losses on the bombers during deep penetration raids. Whilst they may not have appreciated the danger to Germany there was a clear danger of high altitude raids on occupied Europe escorted by shorter range fighters. 
Some form of contingency planning should have been in place.

The RAF had aircraft developed to the point of production, had a high level threat developed. In somce cases they were not actually built or they were built in small numbers but plans were in place.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2009)

I see the issue from another angle, Bill.

When doing it's business, Luftwaffe always had an edge in performance against the opposition. 109E was fastest in 1939, 1940 (okay, Spit II comes close, but 95% of others are distinctively slower), in 1941 109F is in a class of its own (honorable mention for Mig-1/3), with FW-190 and 109G taking over in 1942. The tactics and quality of pilots is mostly in German hands.

Now, with 1943 starting, Spitfire VIII/IX/XII, Typhoon, P-38, P-47 arose. Japs talk about US fighter that has bent wings and it's faster then anything they have. Russian fighters are still slightly slower, but the advantage shrinks when flying low. Shortly, Germans do not poses edge in performance anymore. 
Further, the allies begin to field tough multi-engined and/or armoured planes that require good punch to ensure a kill. The quality doctrine of Allied air forces becomes close to what Germans have to offer. The overall quality of new pilots for LW declines. The German armies have been soundly defeated in Russia and N. Africa, with Southern front wide opened by Torch landings. 
In top of that, Germans are outproduced by each of 3 major opponents. 

If I was the chief of Luftwaffe, I'd feel driven to come with something both good easy to produce, ASAP.


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

> So the question arises, "what in early 1943" drives the LW to upgrade either the 190 or 109 when they believed no high performance fighter would ever have the range to challenge the LW over Germany?


By 1943 both Britain and the USA have made a huge committment to heavy bomber production. It stands to reason they will not allow Germany to keep slaughtering these very expensive aircraft. Germany cannot predict the P-51D but they can predict that U.S. 8th Air Force will come up with some sort of very long range escort fighter.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> AFAIK Willy and co. didn't screw up on the 210. They knew the aircraft had bugs to be ironed out (which were, eventually), but the RLM pressed hard for the production, before it could be fully developed. In any case, it was the biggest fiasco for Willy M, the businessman.



I always wondered why the Hungarian Airforce were more than happy with the Me 210 while the Luftwaffe thought that they were very dangerous. As I understand it, they all came from the same production line with the Luftwaffe getting a share of the production. So both airforces would have had the same problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> AFAIK Willy and co. didn't screw up on the 210. They knew the aircraft had bugs to be ironed out (which were, eventually), but the RLM pressed hard for the production, before it could be fully developed. In any case, it was the biggest fiasco for Willy M, the businessman.



One of the "bugs" was solved by lengthing the fuselage by over 3 ft (about 1 meter?) which by the standards of the time really wasn't that bad. Plenty of other companies had to do some rather major "tweaks" to get their airframes to handle properly under all conditions also. 

Point is that even expericed teams could not predict flight behavior beforehand even with the wind tunnels of the time. Sometimes they got lucky and a design required very little tweaking and sometimes not so lucky and months were spent trying everything they could think of.

Sometimes they got lucky and were able to graft large changes onto an existing airframe for a change in role with little trouble and sometimes they weren't so lucky. And luck did have something to do with it

Even Ed Heinemann when working on the A-4 Skyhawk was baffled by rudder oscillations until they tried constructing the rudder inside out. No rudder skin. The rudder was a flat plate with the ribs on the outside.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2009)

Glider said:


> I always wondered why the Hungarian Airforce were more than happy with the Me 210 while the Luftwaffe thought that they were very dangerous. As I understand it, they all came from the same production line with the Luftwaffe getting a share of the production. So both airforces would have had the same problem.



as I understand it the Hungarian 210s had the stretched fuselage.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> as I understand it the Hungarian 210s had the stretched fuselage.



I had heard that, but if they all came from the same production line presumably the ones for the Luftwaffe had the same stretch.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2009)

Hungarian were produced in Hungary (1/3 for Hungary, rest for LW).


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 6, 2009)

Glider said:


> I always wondered why the Hungarian Airforce were more than happy with the Me 210 while the Luftwaffe thought that they were very dangerous. As I understand it, they all came from the same production line with the Luftwaffe getting a share of the production. So both airforces would have had the same problem.



We had the 210Ca, basically the licensed version of the 210C (a=auslandisch=foreign). The 210C had the lenghtened fuselage (and was powered by 605s instead of 601s), as did the late batch 210A (lang), as well as other fixes (slats were also added, vertical fin enlarged IIRC). 

It was the short fuselaged initial 210A-1 that was earned to poor rep, and it stuck. But that AFAIK pretty much came down to rushing a semi-finished aircraft into production.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 6, 2009)

drgondog said:


> In early 1943, the German leaders had zero idea regarding the upcoming disaster the Mustang would bring to the defense of Germany.


This is simply not true. They had heard about the American plans for a new superbomber and they noticed that the B-17 operated at altitudes which were too high for the Fw 190. 
Also by 1943 they had experience with the P-38 which could escort bombers at least to the west of Germany. The writing was on the wall !

Also, Galland told Goering in 1943 that American fighter planes had reached Cologne. Goering told him to stop this nonsense as this was simply impossible. After which Galland told him "I have seen the wrecks with my own eyes, and what's more, soon they will fly even deeper inland" after which Goering went into a rage and gave him a direct order to stop talking about it 
So yeah, when talking about German leaders, you are in fact right! 




> The Fw 190A was a superb bomber killer, better than the 109 and it was doing a very good job on unescorted B-17/B-24's where the drop off in performance was not critical as a bomber attacker.


I would like to see a source proving that the Fw 190 was more succesful against bombers than the Bf 109. I have seen kill figures and what I recall from them is that one cannot prove from these figures that the Fw 190 was more effective. (Not including the Hoehengruppen.)


Other than that, I am repeating two things what I said before.
1. The BMW 801 had to continue development and production for the simple reason that it is a bad idea to bet on just one horse. Going with one fighter aircraft can lead to serious problems when that design suddenly becomes obsolete and no further development is possible. But the same can be said about the DB 600 series. So you need a backup for both. So not just another fighter with a DB 601. 
Yet for production logic one needs to become the main fighter (and engine) in production.
2. When Tank had to design a high altitude fighter, his first reaction was to take on the Fw 187 design as he thought no single engined fighter could achieve the climb rate and ceiling needed. Of course this would have been quite different from the Fw 187. Yet, it means that if the Fw 187 had reached production back in 1939 it could have served as a basis for a new fighter. Just like the P-43 lead to the P-47, the Ju 88 to the Ju 388 or the Manchester to the Lancaster. In other words, it would have saved in development time. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 6, 2009)

> The BMW 801 had to continue development and production for the simple reason that it is a bad idea to bet on just one horse.


What about the DB603, Jumo213 and Jumo222? There were other engines in the pipeline as well which might have worked out after sufficent research and development.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> This is simply not true. They had heard about the American plans for a new superbomber and they noticed that the B-17 operated at altitudes which were too high for the Fw 190.
> Also by 1943 they had experience with the P-38 which could escort bombers at least to the west of Germany. The writing was on the wall !
> 
> *Kris - IMO 'Too High' is relative - the B-17 operated at altitudes in which the 190 performance was declining but nevertheless more than enough to climb, form and attack B-17's and certainly B-24's. The first P-38s performing escort missions in the ETO were the 55th FG P-38F's in mid Oct 1943. Had the 78th FG retained the first P-38s in Dec 1942 instead of having them taken away in Dec 1942 for North Africa - the 'warning' may have been more noticable, and the development of the P-38 may have been more accelerated.
> ...



I would speculate that Tank knew that both a climb rate and ceiling could be achieved with a single engine fighter as both a Spit IX and 109G had more than adequate climb rates to be an effective interceptor - particularly for a B-17/B-24 level technology. He was, I presume, aware of the speculation on the B-29 performance which is why the development of the Ta 152 and Fw 190D series began - was it not? Certainly the Mossie gave first hand evidence of requirements for a high performance interceptor.


----------



## Bronc (Nov 6, 2009)

Even with 60+ years of hindsight, thinking about / finding a way to *successfully attack *
(and beat back) the 8th Air Force's bombers is really hard. Galland said if he would have
had even 100 Me-262's (in the air) it could have been done. And I'm thinking that was 
the only way.

Let's face it, even without fighter escort attacking the bomber formations was
pretty tough (and down right terrifying.) *The link below* takes you to an extended
*Galland interview*, and much, much rarer, there is *(3) three minutes of Johannes Steinhoff.*

*Watch Steinhoff's awesome character, the incredible presence of the man, when he talks
about attacking American bombers. And Galland when he talks about having 100 Me-262's.)*

*Click below: * 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_8LCtMddPw_

There are two seperate issues here: the B-17 / B- 24 issue and the fighter escort issue.

P-38, P-47D and P-51 fighter escort is going to make getting more 30mm on target
that much harder.

*Shortround6 has identified 4 issues to work on:*

*1) Better training for pilots
2) A better gun sight
3) Developing a flatter trajectory round to get less time of flight for a higher percentage of hits 
4) Putting more lead in the air -- firing more rounds*

Are there any others?

Bronc


----------



## Bronc (Nov 6, 2009)

In the video at *1:39* it shows Galland giving a briefing *without* his RK. Why?

Click here: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_8LCtMddPw_

Bronc


----------



## paradoxguy (Nov 6, 2009)

Bronc said:


> In the video at *1:39* it shows Galland giving a briefing *without* his RK. Why?
> 
> Click here:
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_8LCtMddPw_
> ...




I forget the exact time frame, but Galland took off his decorations and refused to wear them for 6 months (if I recall the duration correctly) when Goering suggested that some Luftwaffe fighter pilots won their Ritterkreuz's by faking victory claims in their combat reports. Some accounts indicate that Galland tore off his decorations and slammed them down on a table in front of Goering during a conference.

PG


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2009)

Drgondog, I think that is not giving the German intelligence enough credit. The Germans did have figures on the coming American aircraft production and they had captured P-38s and P-47s back in 1943. So they knew that these aircraft could enter Germany. They also knew that soon improved versions would be coming ever deeper into Germany. I was wrong to say Cologne, it was Aachen in the late Summer of 1943 when Galland and Goering argued. Goering couldn't and wouldn't believe there were American fighters over Germany as he had given his word to Hitler. But even if the Ruhr area is not Berlin, it is definitely a horrible idea that this main German industry zone would now be bombed with fighter escort. Perhaps not in early 1943 but at least by mid 1943 the Germans - except for the top top leaders like Hitler or Goering - realized what was coming. 
In any case the development of a Fw 190 achieving an altitude of 40,000 feet had already been ordered. Was this only for the high altitude intruding Mosquito's ? 
And as I said, Tank believed a single engined fighter could not get to this altitude. And he was right. It took until early 1945 before he could come up with one which could. 



> What about the DB603, Jumo213 and Jumo222? There were other engines in the pipeline as well which might have worked out after sufficent research and development.


Sure. But I am talking about 1938/1939. These engines were still far away.
Also, a radial engine would probably the logical choice as both have distinct advantages. The BMW 139 or 801 could be used by bombers or attack aircraft.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2009)

Thanks for mentioning Mosquito, Bill, yet another impetus for having a high performing fighter.

With all this 18 page thread about 109, some things could be said IMO:
-for the better part of war, 109 was a great fighter BECAUSE of it's engine
-for the better part of war, 190 was a great fighter DESPITE of it's engine*
-MK 103 was too big for 109 ( and for 190 as we see), while MK 108 had low velocity - something in between was needed - say, perhaps 20mm flak 38 scaled up to 25mm, 200-250g M-geschoss, 700m/s, 60 round drum

*boy, did Germans $crewed up big time when neglected DB-603, the only engine that was both powerful and available early enough


----------



## riacrato (Nov 7, 2009)

I disagree somewhat. 

MK 108 vs something in between vs MK 103:
There is no in between. These guns are fundamentally different in operation, you cannot dictate the performance figures you mention into the design.

The MK108 was cheap, light, fast firing and reliable due to the simple blowback operation. You can't easily scale that down, and moreover you can't increase barrel length. The MK108 was as it was a perfect low-medium velocity gun for close to medium distance.

If you want something in between you could probably scale up the MG151/20. What's the use? Is the increase in destructive power worth the increase in weight, retooling of your factories and logistical effort? I doubt it.

Why do people always draw the conclusion that the steps taken then were wrong and some jack-of-all-trades technology was the real answer? Doesn't seem plausible to me.

The DB603:
The engine was never discontinued by DB, it simply wasn't funded by the government anymore. How much that really impacted it's development time is pure speculation unless someone brings up some facts to support this. And about the "screw up" thing. That really is a 20/20 hindsight assertion that doesn't take into account the circumstances of the time. The DB603 was no longer funded because the RLM needed DB600 series engines now. So since they already had promising projects in that engine class with other companies they tried to force DB to continue on producing and improving the engine they needed really badly at that point.


----------



## davebender (Nov 7, 2009)

> radial engine would probably the logical choice as both have distinct advantages.


I think this is the real reason RLM kept hammering away at the BMW801 engine and Fw-190A programs until they finally worked. They were determined to have a modern twin radial engine similiar to the Wright R-2600. 

With the benefit of hindsight RLM would probably have been further ahead to design the Fw-190 for the DB603 engine right from the fall of 1937. But you don't get that benefit in the real world.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2009)

The real problem was the lack of a good supercharger set-up on any production German engine before 1945.

A single stage supercharger just cannot supply air at a high enough pressure to maintain power at 25,000-35,000ft no matter how many gears or how it is driven. 

Doesn't matter if you are using a 42liter 14cylinder engine or a 44.5 liter 12 cylinder engine or a 47 liter 18cylinder engine. 
The DB series did have several slight advantages which added together ment it had several thousand more feet of rated altitude than the BMW 801 but it still wasn't going to compete with the two stage superchargers on the allied planes no matter how they were driven, Mechanical or turbo. 

There is no reason the BMW 801 could not have been give a mechanical drive aux supercharger stage and intercooler from AN ENGINE STAND POINT. 
The problem is in fitting the extra bulk into existing aircraft designs. Or fitting the extra bulk into a standard "power egg".
Same with the V-12s.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2009)

riacrato said:


> Why do people always draw the conclusion that the steps taken then were wrong and some jack-of-all-trades technology was the real answer? Doesn't seem plausible to me.


Although I agree with Tomo's ideas I also agree that it is perhaps too easy to suggest these engineerical improvements without complete understanding of the limitations of the time. I cannot count how many times I haven't wondered with endless amazement or even irritation why they _simply_ didn't do this or that. So many of these ideas have been swept away as soon as I found some information about the specific circumstances of the situation. 
So that's why I am sceptical about any of our propositions. It usually is more complicated than it looks. The MK 108-103 in between is a good example but also our discussions about German engines. It is clear that they made the mistake of taking on too many projects with too little resources but it still remains unclear what _exactly_ they would have achieved if they hadn't. 



davebender said:


> I think this is the real reason RLM kept hammering away at the BMW801 engine and Fw-190A programs until they finally worked. They were determined to have a modern twin radial engine similiar to the Wright R-2600.
> 
> With the benefit of hindsight RLM would probably have been further ahead to design the Fw-190 for the DB603 engine right from the fall of 1937. But you don't get that benefit in the real world.


Quite right! Looking back the DB 603 would have been sufficient for all their fighters and night fighters. But just imagine that would have turned out another Jumo 222! 



Shortround6 said:


> The real problem was the lack of a good supercharger set-up on any production German engine before 1945.
> 
> A single stage supercharger just cannot supply air at a high enough pressure to maintain power at 25,000-35,000ft no matter how many gears or how it is driven.


There is one thing I don't understand. What was the story behind the Mikulin engine of the MiG-3? That seems to have been optimalized for high altitude? And I also think Spitfire HFs had their engines tuned for high altitudes. Why couldn't the Germans have done the same with their DB 605s? (of course only for those Bf 109s in the Reichsverteidigung) 



> There is no reason the BMW 801 could not have been give a mechanical drive aux supercharger stage and intercooler from AN ENGINE STAND POINT.
> The problem is in fitting the extra bulk into existing aircraft designs. Or fitting the extra bulk into a standard "power egg".
> Same with the V-12s.


But this should have been less of a problem with the BMWs on the Ju 88 nightfighters, right? The power egg would be altered but it would be no problem to install. And yet we never see a two-stage supercharger. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> About man hours required in year and after a production of n-number of aircraft - FW 190, Ju 88, Bf 109:



Man hours is a much better way to tell. Production figures is too misleading in my opinion.



drgondog said:


> In early 1943, the German leaders had zero idea regarding the upcoming disaster the Mustang would bring to the defense of Germany. They rightly concluded that they could meet the daylight threat from the 8th AF with the inventory on hand and felt no sense of urgency in building a much better high altitude interceptor.
> 
> The Fw 190A was a superb bomber killer, better than the 109 and it was doing a very good job on unescorted B-17/B-24's where the drop off in performance was not critical as a bomber attacker.
> 
> ...



Agreed. In 1943 things were still going alright for the Luftwaffe. It is not like they had crystal balls and all.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2009)

riacrato said:


> I disagree somewhat.
> 
> MK 108 vs something in between vs MK 103:
> There is no in between.
> ...


.
.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> This is simply not true. They had heard about the American plans for a new superbomber and they noticed that the B-17 operated at altitudes which were too high for the Fw 190.
> Also by 1943 they had experience with the P-38 which could escort bombers at least to the west of Germany. The writing was on the wall !
> 
> Also, Galland told Goering in 1943 that American fighter planes had reached Cologne. Goering told him to stop this nonsense as this was simply impossible. After which Galland told him "I have seen the wrecks with my own eyes, and what's more, soon they will fly even deeper inland" after which Goering went into a rage and gave him a direct order to stop talking about it
> So yeah, when talking about German leaders, you are in fact right!



Good call. I actually forgot all about that conversation. It just goes to prove the point how out of touch with reality that Goering (Or should we call him Herr Meier? ) and other High Command officials really were.

Either way good stuff everyone. This has finally turned into a good thread with good information. See how easy and better it is when people get rid of the chips on their shoulders...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Drgondog, I think that is not giving the German intelligence enough credit. The Germans did have figures on the coming American aircraft production and they had captured P-38s and P-47s back in 1943. So they knew that these aircraft could enter Germany. They also knew that soon improved versions would be coming ever deeper into Germany. I was wrong to say Cologne, it was Aachen in the late Summer of 1943 when Galland and Goering argued. Goering couldn't and wouldn't believe there were American fighters over Germany as he had given his word to Hitler. But even if the Ruhr area is not Berlin, it is definitely a horrible idea that this main German industry zone would now be bombed with fighter escort. Perhaps not in early 1943 but at least by mid 1943 the Germans - except for the top top leaders like Hitler or Goering - realized what was coming.
> In any case the development of a Fw 190 achieving an altitude of 40,000 feet had already been ordered. Was this only for the high altitude intruding Mosquito's ?
> 
> *I still don't understand this comment. Both the MkVII and Mk IX were easily capable of 40,000 feet and doing it in 1942 so why would tank have even a remote notion that no single engine figter could reach 40,000 feet?
> ...



I have zero clue what German intel had on the RAF experiments with a Merlin Powered Mustang in 1942, nor do I know what they believed about the B-29 but if they knew about both and expected them in 1944 they really screwed up - which is hard to believe - regarding threat analysis and meeting them with priority developments.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 7, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The real problem was the lack of a good supercharger set-up on any production German engine before 1945.
> 
> A single stage supercharger just cannot supply air at a high enough pressure to maintain power at 25,000-35,000ft no matter how many gears or how it is driven.
> 
> ...



This is not quite true - people tend to think of two-staged superchargers as some kind of magic wand, but in reality, the power outputs of the high altitude DB 605AS and D engines with the enlarged supercharger was identical to that of the two-staged Merlin 6x series and the licensed Packard 1650-3/7 that drove the Spitfire VIII/IX and the Mustang B/C/D. This is easily confirmable from an overlay of power curves for the respective engines.

Also the rated altitude of the earlier DB 605A and the BMW 801 were similiar, around 19 000 feet. The plus IMHO for the Bf 109 was that it was considerably lighter than the BMW 801 powered FW 190s, with the added advantage of a less draggy installation of an inline vs a radial and thus was effected much less by the gradual loss of power above the rated altitude. Similiarly, the gains from the adoption of the inline Jumo 213A for the FW 190D were related to the same factor of decreased drag - _the Jumo powerplant neither offered more power or higher rated altitude compared to the radial BMW 801_.

It also worth of noting that the later, two staged Merlin 66 / V1650-7 were geared for lower altitudes compared to the earlier ones, reflecting operational requirements, to around 16000 feet.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> .
> .


1. The flak 38 is not an aircraft gun. It is way to heavy and has a poor rate of fire. It's range and accuracy aren't needed in realistic scenarios. It is a very poor choice for a fighter armament.

2. The MK 108 barrel they chose was the longest they could without the risk of blowing up the gun. If you increase the barrel length the chamber pressure rises.

3. Yes the MK 108 is the holy cow.

4. Jumo 213 Jumo 222 were also in development. Of course the latter turned out to be a failure but I guess you with your infinite knowledge can predict that in 1937 eh?

"And DB 601/605 remained with same power from mid 1942 to mid 1944 (and still under the main rival, Merlin 60 series). I guess RLM failed to force DB to do that, don't you agree?" Wtf is this even supposed to mean. What do the development problems of the 601/605 have to do with anything I said?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2009)

Didn't wanted to bee to harsh, sorry 

1.Since we're mounting it to aircraft, it becomes aircraft gun. For it's power (134g @ 900m/s) it's not over weighted, and it's surely lighter then MK 103. My guess is that higher accuracy power is always a good thing. Since we're about to upgrade (perhaps only up-neck) to 25mm (as I've said, 200-250g @ 700m/s) it would be a killer gun as a motor cannon, or two for FW-190 outer wing mounting.

2. Since MK 108 had about 1/3 of propellant of 103 had, my guess is that chamber pressure was pretty low. So they could mount a longer barrel if we took only pressures in account. 

3. Again: nice.

4. DB-603 was reality in 1942. Jumo 213 was reality in 1944, with same power. What would you choose in 1942?

My tirade shows that RLM was not properly pushing DB to increase power of 601/603 line from 1942-44 as you stated:


> The DB603 was no longer funded because the RLM needed DB600 series engines now. So since they already had promising projects in that engine class with other companies* they tried to force DB to continue on producing and improving the engine they needed really badly at that point.*


...or you are wrong about that part in bold.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> This is not quite true - people tend to think of two-staged superchargers as some kind of magic wand, but in reality, the power outputs of the high altitude DB 605AS and D engines with the enlarged supercharger was identical to that of the two-staged Merlin 6x series and the licensed Packard 1650-3/7 that drove the Spitfire VIII/IX and the Mustang B/C/D. This is easily confirmable from an overlay of power curves for the respective engines.



Again, "This is not quite true" The Allied liquied cooled engines,being smaller needed higher boost to develop comparable power. This ment that they needed higher pressure ratios from their superchargers to make rated power than the German engines but it does not mean that the Germans could use single stage superchargers at any hight they wished to. I know you didn't say they could but let us look at the examples you gave. For the DB 605AS to maintain 1.42 ata to 26,000ft it's supercharger needs just about a 4:1 pressure ratio which is actually quite good for a single stage supercharger. THe Merlin -3 engine because it is operating at 2.04 ata at military power (NOT WER) needs a supercharger than can supply a pressure ratio of 5.74:1 at about the same altitude.

Now to go any higher the Germans are either going to have to get more than 4:1 out of a single stage or add a second stage. Since a second stage doesn't add but mulitplies the British could have been using (in therory) a pair of 2.4:1 compressors. giving them a lot more potential for higher pressure ratios. 
Practical factors that come into play are the higher the boost the hotter the air entering the engine and the more danger from detonation. However using two stages to get the same pressure ratio overall means less actual power used in the compressors and less actual heating of the air for the same pressure ratio. this is without using an inter/aftercooler. However it does help explain why inter/after coolers are almost manditory on two stage engines.

Pleae do not confuse the Military Power rating height for the WER height. THe former is limited more by the pressure ratio of the supercharger while the latter is limited by the volume flow of the supercharger. 



Kurfürst said:


> Similiarly, the gains from the adoption of the inline Jumo 213A for the FW 190D were related to the same factor of decreased drag - _the Jumo powerplant neither offered more power or higher rated altitude compared to the radial BMW 801_.
> 
> Could you please give some sources for this. The ones I have seem to show the Jumo having about 10% more power than an 801D at 18,000ft. But these sources are old and may not be accurate.
> 
> ...


----------



## riacrato (Nov 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Didn't wanted to bee to harsh, sorry
> 
> 1.Since we're mounting it to aircraft, it becomes aircraft gun. For it's power (134g @ 900m/s) it's not over weighted, and it's surely lighter then MK 103. My guess is that higher accuracy power is always a good thing. Since we're about to upgrade (perhaps only up-neck) to 25mm (as I've said, 200-250g @ 700m/s) it would be a killer gun as a motor cannon, or two for FW-190 outer wing mounting.


It's still way too heavy and the ROF is very poor. Anything below 600 rpm you can pretty much forget about unless you pack a whole lot of them into your plane and the flak 38 only has 450 rpm. Heck you might as well take the MK 103 then (440 rpm), at least its more powerful.



> 2. Since MK 108 had about 1/3 of propellant of 103 had, my guess is that chamber pressure was pretty low. So they could mount a longer barrel if we took only pressures in account.


I'm pretty sure if they could they would've done so.



> 4. DB-603 was reality in 1942. Jumo 213 was reality in 1944, with same power. What would you choose in 1942?


Jumo 213 powered Fw 190s flew in 1942. The DB 603 still had serious teething problems even as late as late 1943. So it surely wasn't as perfected as you make it.



> My tirade shows that RLM was not properly pushing DB to increase power of 601/603 line from 1942-44 as you stated


Sorry but I don't see the logic in that. As soon as someone puts you under pressure you magically solve all problems in no time? That doesn't make any sense. And I also said develop, which not only means increase in power. The most important thing at the time was manufacture though, which I clearly stated.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2009)

Drog; I'm sure I wasn't clear on this: I meant to say that the requirement was to get to 40,000 ft RAPIDO ! The requirement was for a high altitude interceptor. The required performance - I don't know how many ft/min or how many min to 40,000 ft were stipulated - was high enough to believe that only a twin engined interceptor à la Lightning would have been able to do so. Of course several aircraft could reach 40,000 ft.

Qnd yeah, I'm also getting a bit confused as to what we're talking about.  For some subject such as the Fw 187 we are talking about the late 30s, but for other subjects like a possible Bf 109 replacement we are in 1943. And early 1943 to be exact. 
I agree that the Luftwaffe felt it was still on top of it by early 1943. This only changed dramatically after the Summer.


Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2009)

riacrato said:


> It's still way too heavy and the ROF is very poor. Anything below 600 rpm you can pretty much forget about unless you pack a whole lot of them into your plane and the flak 38 only has 450 rpm.
> 
> *450 rpm means 10 rounds in 1,5 seconds, so more then enough to bring a bomber down since 'my' gun is 'too much accurate powerful (as you state)'. But just to comfort you, the engineers would tune it to fire faster our new 25mm ammo, okay? *
> 
> ...



.


----------



## gorizont (Nov 8, 2009)

riacrato said:


> It's still way too heavy and the ROF is very poor. Anything below 600 rpm you can pretty much forget about unless you pack a whole lot of them into your plane and the flak 38 only has 450 rpm. Heck you might as well take the MK 103 then (440 rpm), at least its more powerful.



It's rather interesting question.
The gun and especially its ammo was designed for destroying land target (armoured cars, tanks etc), it was rather lightweighted in comparison with Mk.101, its predessor.
As far as I know Germans tried to increase its rate of fire but failed.
And for such a little bird as Bf.109 it seems too bulky and I suppose reduced markably craft's flight characteristics.

But the interesting question - why Germans could't design anythig like that: Type 5 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
An introduction to collecting 30 mm cannon ammunition
According to 'Japanese Aircraft Equipment 1940-45 - Schiffer' its weight was 66 kg - less than half of the Mk.103 weight.
If Japanese managed...

Gun Type 5 on its characteristics seems about the ideal motor-cannon (against aircrafts) with its weight and power - initial velocity is close to the Mg.151/20.
And its ROF is 25% higher than of Mk.103. And it was easy to unificate production of ammo as cartridge for Type 5 looks like shortened cartridge for Mk.103. I know that there are some differences in dimensions, but rather small.


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2009)

Mauser MG 213 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They did. However the Mauser MG213 revolver cannon didn't make it into production before the war ended.


----------



## Bug_racer (Nov 8, 2009)

just to add to the conversation : If you wanted to get to 40000ft fast why not develop a detachable take off rocket assisted launch ? That way you gain the altitude faster and use less fuel in the process .


----------



## gorizont (Nov 8, 2009)

davebender said:


> Mauser MG 213 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> They did. However the Mauser MG213 revolver cannon didn't make it into production before the war ended.



30-mm MK.213C is a low velocity gun exactly as Mk.108. it's not multiporpose moreover I suppose it was not efficient against fighters (especially in dogfighting) because of low velocity.
It's good just against heavy unmaneuverable bombers/
But if you have just the only one cannon - as Bf.109K has the only motor-cannon - usefulness a low-velocity 30-mm cannon became doubtful. Especially if you pay attention at quantity of ammo for such a cannon in the box on the board.

Besides - a cannon of ballistic similar or close to ballistic of rest of armamment (MG.131) is most desirable, dispersion of shots is no more than mediocre. in the case of combination a low velocity gun + medium velocity machinguns dispersion should be quite vast and combo fire is efficient only at short distance. It is a rule for WWII fighter pilots to fire from close distances if one desired to shoot opponent with guarantee, but situations could be different.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 8, 2009)

M*G*213C has a mv of 1050 m/s though. Conversion was rather easy so you could use the one or the other based on what was necessary.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> just to add to the conversation : If you wanted to get to 40000ft fast why not develop a detachable take off rocket assisted launch ? That way you gain the altitude faster and use less fuel in the process .



Germans, among others, were experiminting with rocket assited take-off in WW II. 

It worked for take-off of heaviely loaded aircraft but might be less successful for climb performance. The solid fuel rockets didn't have much burn time and liquied fueled rockets start getting expensive to use as throw aways. 
An how many hundred pounds of rocket fuel do you use to save how much gasoline?


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2009)

Type 791B Aircraft Cannon - Archived 2/2000
High muzzle velocity and 1,200 rounds per minute make the MG213 superior to anything else from the WWII time frame. I assume it would have entered mass production during 1946.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2009)

Please note that it took the French about 6 years to get the the revolver cannon into production starting where the Germans left off. I don't believe the British were much quicker and according to some accounts the American version (M 39) did see combat in 1953.
I don't know if this is becasue of the Korean War slowing things down or if the Korean War actually might have moved up priority.
I am not sure I can believe that 'Not invented here' modifications would have slowed down production of a "ready to go" gun by 4-5 years assming all three countries waited until 1948 to actually do anything with the design.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 8, 2009)

The Germans had a rotary machinegun in WW1. If you go to the WW1 section, you can see a photo of it.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note that it took the French about 6 years to get the the revolver cannon into production starting where the Germans left off. I don't believe the British were much quicker and according to some accounts the American version (M 39) did see combat in 1953.
> I don't know if this is becasue of the Korean War slowing things down or if the Korean War actually might have moved up priority.
> I am not sure I can believe that 'Not invented here' modifications would have slowed down production of a "ready to go" gun by 4-5 years assming all three countries waited until 1948 to actually do anything with the design.



The T-160 was a modified M-39 and was used as past of Gunval program in Korea in 1953. IIRC the a/c were modified on a special contract with NAA and tested at Eglin when I was a kid there in 1952.

It was direct result of early returning F-86 fighter pilots complaining about high altitude deficiencies of 50 cal API hitting MiGs but not causing fires at 35K and above.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2009)

riacrato said:


> M*G*213C has a mv of 1050 m/s though. Conversion was rather easy so you could use the one or the other based on what was necessary.


That's for the 2 cm version. The 3 cm version had half the muzzle velocity.

The Germans couldn't make the MG 213 to work despite working on it for years and throwing a lot of money/resources at it. It is still very unclear that they would have fixed the problems by 1946.
However, that it took the allies several years to come up with their version doesn't mean that much. That happened to a lot of German innovatations.


Kris


----------



## Bronc (Nov 8, 2009)

*The Russians* had a high-velocity (900m/s) 23mm cannon round with a high rate of fire 
(intentionally slowed to 540 rpm) in the *Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23*.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/ussr-aircraft-weapons-13780-3.html

Why not straight up copy it??

Bronc


----------



## gorizont (Nov 8, 2009)

Bronc said:


> *The Russians* had a high-velocity (900m/s) 23mm cannon round with a high rate of fire
> (intentionally slowed to 540 rpm) in the *Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23*.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/ussr-aircraft-weapons-13780-3.html
> ...



As far as I know Its recoil considered too big for a motor-cannon on fighters. It used only on Il-2, moreover it didn't be installed on Il-10 - spetialists considered its recoil too big for a wing-mounted cannon - even for relatively heavy aircraft as Il.
Recoil was't only too big, besides it was rather harsh and overstressed mountings and elements of construction of an aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2009)

Since Russians used 37mm as a motor cannon, I guess that 23mm could be used in the same place, recoil-wise. Perhaps the gas-scoop leading from the barrel interfered with something inside engine, as was the case with MK 103?


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2009)

> However, that it took the allies several years to come up with their version doesn't mean that much. That happened to a lot of German innovatations.


I agree. German infantry were using StG44 assault rifles and MG42 light machineguns during 1944. It was 20 years before the U.S. Army introduced the equivalent M16 assault rifle and M60 machinegun.


----------



## gorizont (Nov 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Since Russians used 37mm as a motor cannon, I guess that 23mm could be used in the same place, recoil-wise. Perhaps the gas-scoop leading from the barrel interfered with something inside engine, as was the case with MK 103?



Maybe it was the simplification of a problem from me.
But according to ???????????? ?????? ( ???????? ?????, ???? ????????? , ????? 4 /???????? =KRoN=/) "в марте 41 -го ОКБ без особых возражений установило на Ил-2 23-мм пушку ВЯ-23 конструкции А.А.Волкова и С.Я.Ярцева (ЦКБ-14 НКВ), которая, как показали экспериментальные работы, проведенные в НИИ АВ ВВС КА в октябре-ноябре 43-го, имела максимальное значение силы отдачи на наземном станке, ни мало ни много, 5500 кг, а в реальных условиях установки на самолете, где последняя имела возможность отката, - от 3000 до 4000 кг... Между тем, "Илы" с пушками ВЯ-23 честно отслужили всю Отечественную войну без каких-либо серьезных нареканий со стороны летного состава штурмовых авиачастей Красной Армии. "

In English - recoil force was on a trial mounting of 5500 kg (maximal).
In comparison - max recoil force for NS-37 was 5700 kg and average about 2200 kg, but ROF of VYa-23 was two time more.
Pilots and technical personal don't think of VYa recoil on Il-2 being too big, but...

About NS-37. Reports evaluations are contradictory. On one hand its usage considered to be a success as for land and flying targets. On the other hand in reports was noted that in target flew just first round from the birst, the secont and third - usually pass the target by. And there was no mean to shoot at a target birst in more than two or maximum three rounds at all, because the point of aiming were lost because of recoil immediately after the first round leaved the barrel.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> That's for the 2 cm version. The 3 cm version had half the muzzle velocity.
> 
> The Germans couldn't make the MG 213 to work despite working on it for years and throwing a lot of money/resources at it. It is still very unclear that they would have fixed the problems by 1946.
> However, that it took the allies several years to come up with their version doesn't mean that much. That happened to a lot of German innovatations.
> ...



I know it's the 2cm version that was the one davebender mentioned after all.

What makes you think the Germans couldn't make it work. Considering the requirements were only issued in 1942 and the rather radical concept it's design cycle doesn't seem extraordinarily long and so far I never heard of any particular problems. Prototypes were available when the war ended.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I still would like to know why you consider the Fw 190 so superior?


Because it was....


Civettone said:


> Plus, Hohun already showed that the Fw 190s had a similar amount of take off and landing accidents as the Bf 109.


Also consider the years and the amont of training that was being undertaken during that period.



Civettone said:


> As to the Fw 190 as a bomber interceptor ... the Bf 109 could carry 3 MK 108s while the Fw 190 could carry 2 MK 108s and 2 MG 151/20s. But most importantly, the Fw 190 failed to perform at the altitude of the B-17s! And when they did get a new engine for the Fw 190, they dropped the two outboard cannons.


They still carried enough weapons to do the job. As Thatch once said...

"We would rather have six guns, but there is no use carrying around six or eight guns if you can't bring those guns to bear on the enemy."

"The pilot who will miss with four .50-caliber guns won't be able to hit with eight. Increased firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship"

As far as the 190s high altitude performance - what model?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. German infantry were using StG44 assault rifles and MG42 light machineguns during 1944. It was 20 years before the U.S. Army introduced the equivalent M16 assault rifle and M60 machinegun.



A less than accurate comparison. The US wasn't TRYING to build equivelents for most of those years. 

Improved aircraft amament did in fact become something of a Priority once the Soviet Union had the Atom bomb. The F-89 Scorpion being fitted with 6 of the old style 20mm guns in 1950. Using the .50 cal in Korea against fighters was one thing. Using .50 cal guns on large bombers when EVERY SINGLE ONE has to be destroyed is another thing entirely.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2009)

riacrato said:


> I know it's the 2cm version that was the one davebender mentioned after all.
> 
> What makes you think the Germans couldn't make it work. Considering the requirements were only issued in 1942 and the rather radical concept it's design cycle doesn't seem extraordinarily long and so far I never heard of any particular problems. Prototypes were available when the war ended.



Getting the gun to work on a test bench is one thing. Getting them to work in combat is another. The US .50 cal Browning was first built in 1921 yet more than one US aircraft had a number of troubles with them in WW II. Relaibility means one thing if you have six guns to begin with (although the slewing/yawing problem from unequel functioning guns on opposite sides of the plane is bothersome) it is quite another if you only have 2 guns or ONE MOTOR cannon. A Jam is as good as a mission kill. 

Feeding the guns is the big problem. A rifle caliber MG is tryiing to feed about a foot (300-320mm) of ammo through the gun every second and with ammo that weighs 6-7lbs per hundred how much weight is the gun trying to move? it does depend on how the belts are placed in the ammo boxes but now try to feed a 20mm gun at 20 rps. Over twice as much length of belt per second and even MG 151 ammo weigh 220 grams so about 4.4kg of ammo ( not including links) is going into the gun every second. 30mm guns are even worse. Yes you can use servo motors and other tricks but it does take time to get all that stuff to work together in freezing temperatures and under + 5-6 "G"s or - 1-2 "G"s.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 8, 2009)

hello shortround. All well and clear, the design of aircraft cannons is not an easy task. but i was asking for information and facts in this particular case. The way I see it the gun was simply designed too late to get into production before the war ended (like so many other projects), not because they couldn't make it work.


----------



## VG-33 (Nov 8, 2009)

gorizont said:


> Maybe it was the simplification of a problem from me.
> 
> 
> In English - recoil force was on a trial mounting of 5500 kg (maximal).



BTW you have just forgot to quote the most important, from your link:
_Дело в том, что в это время еще не существовало достаточно точной методики определения силы отдачи пушек на станке (первая серьезная работа в этом направлении появилась в НИИ ВВС лишь в конце 1942 г.), а на самолете измерить ее и вовсе было невозможно. ОКБ же было очень сложно решить вопрос о размещении и обеспечении надежной работы магазинной пушки МП-6 под крылом штурмовика Ил-2 (наличие магазина вынуждало ставить пушки не в консолях крыла, а под ними)._

There were not *reliable* measurement methods on that time to establish recoil forces. And particulary in a flying plane, with weapon concreate recoil possibilities, that makes less than 3500-4000 kg force.
So, from Taoubin design bureau you have the value of 2 200 kg force at best only. Moreover in 1941 the work of MP-6 being highly unreliable, Iliouchine just founded a false pretext to avoid this new gun, in favor of the weaker but reliable ShVAK. That is from the link you gave.




> In comparison - max recoil force for NS-37 was 5700 kg and average about 2200 kg, but ROF of VYa-23 was two time more.
> Pilots and technical personal don't think of VYa recoil on Il-2 being too big, but...



Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
It's why the Sh or NS-37 gun use was so confidential on Il-2's.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting the gun to work on a test bench is one thing. Getting them to work in combat is another. The US .50 cal Browning was first built in 1921 yet more than one US aircraft had a number of troubles with them in WW II. Relaibility means one thing if you have six guns to begin with (although the slewing/yawing problem from unequel functioning guns on opposite sides of the plane is bothersome) it is quite another if you only have 2 guns or ONE MOTOR cannon. A Jam is as good as a mission kill.
> 
> Feeding the guns is the big problem. A rifle caliber MG is tryiing to feed about a foot (300-320mm) of ammo through the gun every second and with ammo that weighs 6-7lbs per hundred how much weight is the gun trying to move? it does depend on how the belts are placed in the ammo boxes but now try to feed a 20mm gun at 20 rps. Over twice as much length of belt per second and even MG 151 ammo weigh 220 grams so about 4.4kg of ammo ( not including links) is going into the gun every second. 30mm guns are even worse. Yes you can use servo motors and other tricks but it does take time to get all that stuff to work together in freezing temperatures and under + 5-6 "G"s or - 1-2 "G"s.



That is a key reason why the slanted .50's in the P-51B w/servo for belt was such a problem


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> ...
> Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
> ...



Thanks, VG, that makes sense. 
Question: was VJa-23 ever mounted as motor cannon?


----------



## VG-33 (Nov 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks, VG, that makes sense.
> Question: was VJa-23 ever mounted as motor cannon?




Yes, on some Lagg-3 or Yak-9 very small series from my sources. Rather uncommon case, since there were not enough YVA even for Sturmoviks, those being to often obliged to carry ShVAKs, instead.


----------



## gorizont (Nov 9, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> BTW you have just forgot to quote the most important, from your link:
> There were not *reliable* measurement methods on that time to establish recoil forces. And particulary in a flying plane, with weapon concreate recoil possibilities, that makes less than 3500-4000 kg force.
> So, from Taoubin design bureau you have the value of 2 200 kg force at best only. Moreover in 1941 the work of MP-6 being highly unreliable, Iliouchine just founded a false pretext to avoid this new gun, in favor of the weaker but reliable ShVAK. That is from the link you gave.



So - think over the matter: Figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you doubtfull, but why figures of calculations *based on* figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you undoubtfull? 
It's a contradiction in your position - from logical point of view. 
Besides - in the article above mentioned figures are given for VYa, for MP-6 there are another figures. 



VG-33 said:


> Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
> It's why the Sh or NS-37 gun use was so confidential on Il-2's.



But the fact is, that NS-37 recoil power was mesuared by *the same *unreliable methods and its figures were estimated as equal or a bit more excessive compared to ones of VYa.
You should take in attention a little difference in mountings: VYa were installed closer to fuselage as far I remember, than NS-37. Besides, NS-37 were a bit downed relatively axis through point of gravity

And what we have: 1) most of Il-2 were armed with Shvak not VYa, 2) VYa were installed on Il-10 so its production wasn't cancelled so what didn't allow to install it in 42-43 as a motor-canon on fighters, if the gun hadn't being installed generally on Il for two or three years, in exception a rather small quantaty?
3) why on Il-10M (and on Il-10 last batches) were refused of VYa and was made a decision to install NS-23, if the VYa was so good?


----------



## Altea (Nov 10, 2009)

davebender said:


> A-20. 10 Feb 1943
> P-39. 15 Apr 1943.
> 3 x P-39. 5 Jul 1943.
> 3 x P-39. 17 Aug 1943.
> ...



What a strange method...
Why not just look at soviet Orders of Battle?


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2009)

Erich Hartmann's book is sitting on my shelf. The Soviet OOB is not.


----------



## Altea (Nov 10, 2009)

davebender said:


> Erich Hartmann's book is sitting on my shelf. The Soviet OOB is not.



Well i don't think that Hartmann is a very reliable source, cause from it's 352 official victories no more than 80 could probably be confirmed by russian archives.








From fanatique de l'aviation 451 artice 






http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370287919931



we can see page 22: _in june 43 there were 7 times more air fighter regiments on P-39 at the front than in november 42: 25_. (~900 planes)


page 31 _ in may 45 there were 3087 P-39 both in V-VS and PVO._

Moreover, i wrote that *some *LL planes were not used by soviet in 1945 in FL units (P-63, P-40, Hurries, O-52...), not *all* of them. 

Read carefully, next time.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 10, 2009)

Altea said:


> Well i don't think that Hartmann is a very reliable source, cause from it's 352 official victories no more than 80 could probably be confirmed by russian archives.


And a French Aviation magazine on the other hand is reliable?
While not countering your point, I think the real OOB would give value to your opinion, not the glossy paper.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 10, 2009)

Hauptmann Erich Hartmann..............352
Major Gerhard Barkhorn..................301
Major Gunther Rall..........................275
Oberleutnant Otto Kittel...................267
Major Walter Nowotny***...............258
Major Wilhelm Batz........................237
Major Erich Rudorffer......................222
Oberleutnant Heinrich Bar....................220
Oberst Hermann Graf.........................212
Major Theodor Weissenburger............208
Oberleutnant Hans Philipp...................206
Oberleutnant Walter Schuck................206
Major Heinrich Ehrler.........................204
Oberleutnant Anton Hafner.................204
Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert.................203

Were all the claims for these aces bogus as well?


----------



## Altea (Nov 11, 2009)

Marcel said:


> And a French Aviation magazine on the other hand is reliable?
> While not countering your point, I think the real OOB would give value to your opinion, not the glossy paper.



If you understand what do you want to mean, i don't. Precise your mind.



First, there were overclaim everywhere and everytime during WWII, it's not a scoop owerdays. It was just the Hartmanns turn in Fana 423. 

Secund, in Fana n° 451, Vladimir Kotelnikov, translated by A Nikolsky wrote about *Airacobra career * in USSR in only *15 pages*. So nobody asked him to send the whole soviet OOB for each day from june 41 to may 1945!!! I think he's a big boy enough to count P-39 regiments by himself inside the guenine soviet document. I don't see moreover the plus value if he was sending the complete OOB with dozens pages and hundreds regiments in russian and let the reader search inside...

Third, the french magazine is at least far more reliable than Hartmann claims or Wiki...

BTW.Have you got any reliable dutch magazine to advice to us?


----------



## Altea (Nov 11, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Hauptmann Erich Hartmann..............352
> Major Gerhard Barkhorn..................301
> Major Gunther Rall..........................275
> Oberleutnant Otto Kittel...................267
> ...



It depends a lot from what aces, german experts or stalins sokols overclaim in ostfront is not my hobby. You will rather find it in russian publications.

Dmitry Khazanov for Hartmann.
Youri Rybine for Weissenberger.

AFAIK Graf, Grislawski, Marseille were very close to their claims.
Rudorffer seems to be famous as an overclaimer both in North Afrika against _Lafayette_, and in Soviet front.


----------



## Juha (Nov 11, 2009)

Hello 
From Russian studies, Barkhorn was usually very careful claimer but just before he reached 300. Lipfert was also very careful claimer. On the other hand only one out of Nowotny’s first 10 kills can be confirmed from Soviet records, but IMHO maybe some are uncomfirmable because of the chaotic times of summer 41.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Nov 11, 2009)

This French Hartmann article, is it a translation of Khazanov's article?


----------



## Juha (Nov 11, 2009)

Hello
Don’t know on the article in la Fana but Khazanov's article drew some hard critic from some Western researchers.

On Weissenberger, it seems that JG 5 had some serious claim accuracy problems from mid-42 onwards, or at least so it seemed to be in 2003. I don’t know if that has changed later on.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Nov 11, 2009)

Juha, a little net search found this, Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80? - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

The French magazine article is the Khazanov article.


----------



## Altea (Nov 11, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Juha, a little net search found this, Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80? - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
> 
> The French magazine article is the Khazanov article.



Yes, it's Khazanov's article in french, but i never red it in russian supposingly more complete...


----------



## Altea (Nov 11, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Don’t know on the article in la Fana but Khazanov's article drew some hard critic from some Western researchers.
> 
> On Weissenberger, it seems that JG 5 had some serious claim accuracy problems from mid-42 onwards, or at least so it seemed to be in 2003. I don’t know if that has changed later on.
> ...



Eastern researchers can criticize western articles as well. The better is to do something, not criticize. As far as i remember i was not convinced from Khazanov too. Hope he's still digging about that with more proofs...

Well there was a good site in russian/english "eisenmeerfront" with Weissemberger claims list and soviet air lossesin the north. I hope someone kept the datas.


----------



## Juha (Nov 11, 2009)

Hello Milosh
Yes, I knew the tread, I made a couple small contributions into it.

On LW Eastern Front aces, also Zweigart seems to have been very careful claimer. Other reasonable accurate seems to have been Rall, Spate, Kageneck, Beisswenger, Schilling, Hannig, Broennle and Ademeit, even if there are rumours that Ademeit also claimed victories of his young wingmen as his own but at least many of his claims suited with Soviet known losses.

On the other hand there seems to be many claims made by Kempf, Ostermann and Phillipp to which Russian researchers have not found corresponding losses from Soviet documents.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Nov 11, 2009)

Altea said:


> If you understand what do you want to mean, i don't. Precise your mind.


Well, exactly as you describe below. I only see a magazine, which doesn't look very reliable by the looks of it. But if you had said it's a Kotelnikov article, it would have been much more convincing.




> BTW.Have you got any reliable dutch magazine to advice to us?


Depends on what you're interested in. There are not that many Dutch magazines which I could recommend. 
There are some very good books, like "Illusies en incidenten" about the preparation and maintaining neutrality by the Dutch airforce. For the war-exploits of the Dutch AF you have a few magazine-like books, called Dutch profile (coming with English text) of which the ones written by Frits Gerdessen are the best. And of course you have the "Stichting Fokker G.1 " who have their own paper and who will publish a big book about the G.1 next year.
If you really want to do some research, the best way is to start with the NIOD


----------



## Civettone (Nov 11, 2009)

I would then like to know how many of the victories of these other Experten were confirmed by Russian sources ? If only a part of their victories could be confirmed it says more about the conformity of the Russian archives ... If this only happens to Hartmann and a couple of others, then there could be some truth in it.

But then again, why did the Russians put a price on his head ?????

Kris


----------



## Altea (Nov 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I would then like to know how many of the victories of these other Experten were confirmed by Russian sources ? If only a part of their victories could be confirmed it says more about the conformity of the Russian archives ... If this only happens to Hartmann and a couple of others, then there could be some truth in it.
> 
> But then again, why did the Russians put a price on his head ?????
> 
> Kris



It depends on what do you mean by confirmed. Some of them could be:

- invalidated by russian archives: no planes lost for the claim (confirmed or not)

- validated by russian archives: a shooted plane correspunding exactly to the claim

- uncertain status: that means several claims for one lost plane, it's the tremendous majority of the cases. Moreover most of the soviet lost planes are reported as "missed in action", a small part being shooted down by fighters, another one by Flak. Some losses by accidents of course...

Who shoot who, is virtually impossible to verify. Only make probabilities and stats.

BTW, why do you said that russians put a price on Hartmanns head. Have you got a russian document to sustain that ?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2009)

We already went through this before: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hartmann-liar-1437.html

And Altea, I have always read they put 10,000 roebels on his head but as with 99.99 % of the Russian stuff I know or thought I knew I have not seen an original document about it. In fact, if I may be so blunt, it is a bit of an idiotic and provocative comment. Do you think I can read Russian? Instead my dear Altea, just say what you have to say which is that there is no Russian document on the price on Hartmann's head and that is all a myth. Which is what you wanted to say anyway, isn't it? 
(again not meaning to insult you, I know you mean well)

Kris


----------



## Altea (Nov 12, 2009)

Civettone said:


> We already went through this before: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hartmann-liar-1437.html


If i would say my real opinion about some of those posts, i will be banned from the forum. I won't go further...



> And Altea, I have always read they put 10,000 roebels on his head but as with 99.99 % of the Russian stuff I know or thought I knew I have not seen an original document about it. In fact, if I may be so blunt, it is a bit of an idiotic and provocative comment. Do you think I can read Russian? Instead my dear Altea, just say what you have to say which is that there is no Russian document on the price on Hartmann's head and that is all a myth. Which is what you wanted to say anyway, isn't it?
> (again not meaning to insult you, I know you mean well)
> 
> Kris



Until the opposite is proven, neither the Il-2 was called "Schwartz tod" from germans nor Hartmanns head had any price. The 0,1 % russian of yours that know about Hartmann red or heard about him in western papers late in 1970's, and make confusions now, i think.

Two examples i know:

On 26.02.44 soviet fighters in Kishinew-Iassy aera suffered heavy losses: 5 shooted down, 3 had extensive damage. 4 aerocobras were really shooted down by the JG-52 that annouced 17 confirmed claims. From them 12 P-39 for Hartmann, 1 Rall, 1 Batcnik). 

From the 4.06.1944 Hartmann obtained 7 victories. According Tony Wood 6 were aerocobras again. The only soviets unitis that had cobras near Iassy were the 9 GIAD and the 205 IAD. The 205th had stricltly no losses on that day, the Pokryshkin's 9th, 2.
- One from the 16th GIAP. Lt Dushanine's damaged P-39 in air fight near Movileni made forced landing on soviet side: plane WO, pilot ok.
- One, the lt Buzdin from 104th GIAP did not return from mission. Both plane and pilot WO from lists. No proof that they didn't came back later following days, and no proof that he was shooted down by fighters either.

So considering that germains pilots obtained 11 at least other cobras on that day 4.06.44 that place, some others probably claimed by Flak, maybe bombers or ground forces i wouldn't say the picture was happy for LUFT, concerning claims accuracy.

And so on, and so on.

BTW, Graf and Grislawski had 80-90% of their clams cofirmed by russian reasearchers.

From myself

Werner Moelders *in spain* claimed 15, obtained 14 confirmes victories
- 5 validated personal victories, 9 shared victories, 3 invalidated from russian archives*

Harder Harro had 11 confirmed claims in spain
- 7 personal validated by russian archives, 0 shared, 4 invalidated

Boddem Peter 10 claims, 9 of them confirmed
- 1 personal validate by RA, 2 shared, 7 strictlly invalidated

* it's fun that Moelders obtained 1 unclaimed victory from RA, 1 validation for it's unconfirmed one. That means: were the claims or not confirmed by supposingly severe Luft procedures, makes no importance!


So it depends a lot from the pilot's personnality, not russian archives except maybe in 41, 42 some of they were lost.

Anyway, looking after Hartmann, Lang, or Rudorffer claims in RA, it's like beating sea with a sword (like king Darius): a big wasted effort, Bykov, Dykov, "Grigori-Gri" said on a russian forum. They are men that working for Christer Bergstorm in russian archives, if it tells you something...

Well, we are far off-topic now

Regards


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2009)

Yes off-topic but we have been off-topic in this thread for 87 times already hahaha !
In any case, I have started to realize some years ago that the Russian sources are still largely unexplored or at least unexploited when it comes to the history of WW2 or at least the Eastern Front. I have seen so much new information coming from people who speak Russian and can consult Russian documents. Not that these documents are the holy grail, but correlated with German sources the image becomes much clearer. 

So I feel a certain humbleness when it comes to this subject. I apparently don't know enough to say much about the correctness of Hartmann's claims. Though I feel that the pendulum has swung too much to the other side by saying he only had about 80 victories. Also, where does it end? What does it say about all those other Experten?? 

Kris


----------



## Juha (Nov 12, 2009)

Hello Kris
I agree with Altea but the point that IMHO it is not fair to demand that Hartmann’s a/c identifications were always correct, IMHO better but a more difficult line of approach is to compare single engine claims to single engine losses. I know cases where Finnish pilots has claimed La-5s but when the wrecks were found, it was find out that the planes were in fact P-39s. Also Soviet aces as well aces from all other AFs often misidentified their victims. And also aces of other AFs overclaimed badly time to time. For ex. FC during 1941 over France.

As I wrote Russians and some other researchers have found out that while they usually could find out match to Lipfert’s, Grislawski’s or Zweigart’s claims during small scale combats the same wasn’t case with Hartmann’s or Ostermann’s similar claims. 

My info on accuracy of Lipfert’s and Barkhorn’s claim accuracy is from a very thorough and serious Hungarian researcher/historian and from a couple Russians who seem to be thorough researchers. On JG 54 aces Andrey Dikov, whose name Altea wrote as Dykov, common problem with kyrils, who is very thorough researcher whose speciality is VVS KBF, ie air war over Baltic and around Leningrad. On JG 5 from one Finnish researcher who has based his research on archival studies of Rybkin and of Norwegian Rune Rautio. I also know a couple Finns who had used Soviet military archives since they opened to foreigners. And it seems that the problems with them mostly concentrated in 1941 and partly also in 42. Times of very heavy losses and great retreats.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I would then like to know how many of the victories of these other Experten were confirmed by Russian sources ? If only a part of their victories could be confirmed it says more about the conformity of the Russian archives ... If this only happens to Hartmann and a couple of others, then there could be some truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Kris



First take the Russian Communist Propaganda and then take the German Nationalist Propaganda and put them together and the truth is probably somewhere in between. I think that the results from both sides are very skeptical, but for some reason I tend to believe the German reports over the Russian reports a little more.


----------



## Juha (Nov 12, 2009)

Hello Adler
IMHO in this there isn't question of propaganda but secret air force reports on losses and in all air forces replacemets were allocated mostly according to reports on losses. Of course there might be some irregularities same way than there are in LW records, for ex one well known case when a Bf 110G was reported lost because of engine problems when in fact it was shot down by Soviet AA-mgs during a train busting attack. But there was a special reason to that "lying".

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> IMHO in this there isn't question of propaganda but secret air force reports on losses and in all air forces replacemets were allocated mostly according to reports on losses. Of course there might be some irregularities same way than there are in LW records, for ex one well known case when a Bf 110G was reported lost because of engine problems when in fact it was shot down by Soviet AA-mgs during a train busting attack. But there was a special reason to that "lying".
> 
> Juha



Juha - that is an example of the toughest determination of all - namely 'cause' - particularly if the 'missing' report witness stated he (pilot of missing 110) was last heard to say he was having engine problems.. when in fact it may have been due to flak and the reporting pilot didn't know why his coolant temp was rising..

I run into it all the time when sorting out Macr's. I have a tendency to be conservative. If a guy disappeared and later reported KIA due to unknown causes - I look to the mission and whether or not strafing was involved or enemy a/c seen in the area. If so, then I judge 'unknown-probably flak' or Unknown-probably fighters' and count them in column of losses due to flak or fighters rather than 'unknown'

I also spend a lot of time asking the LW experts for claims/loss data in specific areas to try to match up.


----------



## Juha (Nov 12, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
The story was that the wreck was found in 80s?, in fact when I now think of it I cannot remember was it 110E, F or G, and recovered, the recover team noticed the bullet holes but when they checked LW records they noticed that the loss reason given was engine failure. Happily the crew had made it back to German troops and the pilot had survived the war and was still alive, when contacted he told that when he got back to his base his CO put strong pressure on him that he would give the reason of loss as engine failure. In the end the pilot gave in and wrote his report as his CO had demanded. The reason of all this was that Luftflotte 5 had got an order from OKL that low level attacks against trains were forbidden in order to avoid losses because of precarious state of LW a/c stocks. Local leadership had thought that those attacks were effective way to harass Soviets and their supply traffic and so had allowed the attacks continue and so to hide this disobedience from OKL the real reason of the loss had to be hide.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> The story was that the wreck was found in 80s?, in fact when I now think of it I cannot remember was it 110E, F or G, and recovered, the recover team noticed the bullet holes but when they checked LW records they noticed that the loss reason given was engine failure. Happily the crew had made it back to German troops and the pilot had survived the war and was still alive, when contacted he told that when he got back to his base his CO put strong pressure on him that he would give the reason of loss as engine failure. In the end the pilot gave in and wrote his report as his CO had demanded. The reason of all this was that Luftflotte 5 had got an order from OKL that low level attacks against trains were forbidden in order to avoid losses because of precarious state of LW a/c stocks. Local leadership had thought that those attacks were effective way to harass Soviets and their supply traffic and so had allowed the attacks continue and so to hide this disobedience from OKL the real reason of the loss had to be hide.
> 
> Juha



That makes sense.. different circumstances from my own research..

I have not run into a 'political correctness' scenario like that for USAAF and have a hard time conceiving of it.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2009)

Interesting story Juha !!


Kris


----------



## Altea (Nov 12, 2009)

> Civettone;585929]Yes off-topic but we have been off-topic in this thread for 87 times already hahaha !
> In any case, I have started to realize some years ago that the Russian sources are still largely unexplored or at least unexploited when it comes to the history of WW2 or at least the Eastern Front.



Not only russian, i'm desesperatly lacking italian and franquist claims during Spanish War. In the future, Legion Condor experten will be obliged to share their kills, with them (Aviazione Legionaria, Exercito del Aire)) i hope.





> I have seen so much new information coming from people who speak Russian and can consult Russian documents. Not that these documents are the holy grail, but correlated with German sources the image becomes much clearer.


Sure, it's usefull to hear both sounds of bell.



> So I feel a certain humbleness when it.... Also, where does it end? What does it say about all those other Experten??
> 
> Kris



Yes, from the precise Andreï Dikov, quoted by Juha:

On 28.10.44 VVS KBF (Baltic air fleet) lauched at 2 pm a mixed attack against Libava (Libau), with some Pe-2, Il-2 and Yak. Iliushins were from the 8 GShAP and and 47 ShAP VVS KBF ( ~ 50 planes). Suddenly attacked by 8 FW-190 from II/JG-54, they lost 2 Il-2 from the 47th and one from the 8th Guards. On the way home 2 Yak-9 from the 11th IAP VVS KBF collided each other.

During this sole event, Rudorffer alone was credited with 11 kills, 9 confirmed claims on Il-2, 2 others on undefinite planes.
I would be curious to see how many claims, there were for: 
- other JG 54 pilots
- Heer's Flak
- Kriegsmarine Flak
- Soviet AAA, that was firing virtually at all planes from all sides...


from Dogfight revue

On 9/02/1944 At 13:45 six II./JG 2 pilots scrambled to intercept incoming enemy aircraft. A formation of four P-39s of the 81st FG was flying a reconnaissance mission north of Ousseltia and east of Kairouan, escorted by nine P-40Fs of GC II/5. 16 minutes after take-off, the Fw 190s attacked the P-40s, and in the engagement Sgt. Chef Denaix was hit and force-landed 24 km east of Kasserine. During this fight, Oblt. Bühligen claimed two P-40s destroyed, as did Ofw. Goltzsch, and these four victories occurred between 13:51 and 13:55, three south of Djebel bou Dabouss and one south of Djebel Rihane. Rudorffer claimed 6 P-40 and 2 P-38 around 14:00. 12 kills for 0 P-38 and 2 P-40 lost. Lt Hebrard ok, AdjChef Denaix wounded during crash of its damaged plane, at east of Kasserine, Adj Chef Verrier hitted by Flak.

On 14/02/1944 5 french P-40, 12 american spits escorting A-20 over Faid attacked by 8 FW-190. II/JG-2 claimed 6 Spits, neither frenchmen nor american having losses!

Well, a very shy overclaim i would say in North Africa, for the one that massively killed 13 or 17 ( i don't remember...) Yak 7,9 on a single day, those loosing 3 of them in the real life, for 41 Luftwaffe claims on that type!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> IMHO in this there isn't question of propaganda but secret air force reports on losses and in all air forces replacemets were allocated mostly according to reports on losses. Of course there might be some irregularities same way than there are in LW records, for ex one well known case when a Bf 110G was reported lost because of engine problems when in fact it was shot down by Soviet AA-mgs during a train busting attack. But there was a special reason to that "lying".
> 
> Juha



What I mean is that I think there was a lot of understating things for propaganda reasons. This is not limited to one side either.


----------



## Juha (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello Altea
to Rudorffer’s defence I must say, that according to Tony Woods claim lists, see http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm , not all of his claims on 28 Oct 44 were from the afternoon combat, vast majority were made just before noon and only 2, 15.01 and .03, were made in connection of this attack, Tangemann also claimed 2, 15.02 and .03, Broch and Räsch both one c. 13 minutes later and Thyben one 7 minutes later than Rudorffer’s claims. All claims were Il-2s. So in all at least 4, probably 7 fighter pilots’ claims against 3 real losses. AA claims are more difficult to track, I’ll try to find out, if I have more on this action in the evening. Now I must continue my day work.

Hello Drgondog
even if in military training they emphasise the importance of the accuracy of reports and soldiers were under military discipline, the mass armies of WWII were also cross sections of nations’ male populations and soldiers also knew or at least thought, being unaware of code braking and other intelligence means available to high commands, that it would be very difficult in many cases to check the accuracy of their reports. So also military reports were only products of human activity so may contain human errors or products of failures in personal integrity. So even if we usually can count on documents they are not infallible. Also from 43 onwards part of WM acknowledged that some of orders coming from Berlin were simply stupid and tried to circumvent them. And sometimes it was very difficult to high command to constrain the aggressiveness of combat troops even if the orders were OK for the “big picture”, there were cases of that at least in Finnish AF. And of course we have only pilot's word on that he had written misleading report only after heavy pressure from his CO. But IMHO the story is locigal and it is a fact that the reason of loss given in LW records was wrong.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Nov 13, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> First take the Russian Communist Propaganda and then take the German Nationalist Propaganda and put them together and the truth is probably somewhere in between. I think that the results from both sides are very skeptical, but for some reason I tend to believe the German reports over the Russian reports a little more.



If,the claims lists are biaised, the losses lists are not. No reason for that, you can't hide your losses from your own autorithies anyway. There all from internal documents send to headquarters that need to know at best the real active units strengh, and also for logistic and manteance chain. Those reports (Qvetermeister) may be uncomplete, lost, erroneous, faulty for all kind of reasons. But not biaised by propaganda.
They are just accounts, more or less right or false, with no political charge inside.


----------



## Juha (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello again Altea
I don’t have info on AA claims but while checking what I have on the day I noticed that I probably misunderstood what you meant “VVS KBF (Baltic air fleet) lauched at 2 pm...”. I understood that it was the take off time of Soviet attack formations but it seemed to be the attack time in Moscow time which was CET+2h and LW used CET, in Germany the time had changed from German Summer Time to CET on 2 Oct. So on my old notes the attack time was 14:12 Moscow time, 12:12 CET, so there is still c. 20 min difference, but Germans probably attacked few minutes before Soviets were over their target. Rudorffer claimed 9 Il-2s 11.46-11.56, Broch 2, Tangermann 2, Thyben one Il-2s, altogether 14 Il-2s plus unknown number of AA claims versus 3 Il-2 losses.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Nov 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello again Altea
> I don’t have info on AA claims but while checking what I have on the day I noticed that I probably misunderstood what you meant “VVS KBF (Baltic air fleet) lauched at 2 pm...”. I understood that it was the take off time of Soviet attack formations but it seemed to be the attack time in Moscow time which was +2h CET and if LW used CET, as they well might have used, in Germany the time had changed from German Summer Time to CET on 2 Oct. So on my old notes the attack time was 14:12 Moscow time, 12:12 CET, so there is still c. 20 min difference, but Germans probably attacked few minutes before Soviets were over their target. Rudorffer claimed 9 Il-2s 11.46-11.56, Broch 2, Tangermann 2, Thyben one Il-2s, altogether 14 Il-2s plus unknown number of AA claims versus 3 Il-2 losses.
> 
> Juha



Look, Juha. The problem with pathologic liers like mister R***, is when the say truth nobody trusts them anymore. BTW, Dikov wrote for* Marine * forces and for the whole day, AFAIK , even if he quoted time for cultural information. Were there Rudorffer kills on Il-2 before? So* if*, *than* obviously it was army Shturmoviks, not baltic fleet ones.* But*, Libau being a Marine target, outside frontal aviation working aeras, i wouldn't understand what were they doing there.


----------



## Juha (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello again Altea
no need to get agitated, the afternoon, LW time, combats seemed to have been some 60km East of Libau, so near/over frontline where there has been a big Soviet offensive, front line seemed to have been stabilized on 27 Oct, so the afternoon combat might well be against Army Il-2s and the noon combat around Libau against Naval Il-2s. 

BTW the date when II/JG 2 claimed 15 victories, 8 by Rudorffer vs 3 French P-40s lost was 9 Feb 43.

Juha


----------



## Altea (Nov 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello again Altea
> no need to get agitated, the afternoon, LW time, combats seemed to have been some 60km East of Libau, so near/over frontline where there has been a big Soviet offensive, front line seemed to have been stabilized on 27 Oct, so the afternoon combat might well be against Army Il-2s and the noon combat around Libau against Naval Il-2s.


Who knows? It looks like that Sturmoviks were caught at the Libau port, not 60 km east.



> BTW the date when II/JG 2 claimed 15 victories, 8 by Rudorffer vs 3 French P-40s lost was 9 Feb 43.




I doubt there were still fights over Kasserine pass in 1944...15 you said, not 12?


----------



## Juha (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello Altea
Yes the just before noon, CET time, claims were around Libau, but the afternoon, 3 pm, claims were clearly more East according to grid numbers, so they might have been against VVS Il-2s, but I don’t have any info of VVS Il-2 losses on 28 Oct.

On 9 Feb 43 II/JG 2 claimed 15 kills, all confirmed, 12 P-40s of which 6 by Rudorffer and 3 P-38s of which 2 by Rudorffer.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Nov 15, 2009)

gorizont said:


> So - think over the matter: Figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you doubtfull, but why figures of calculations *based on* figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you undoubtfull?
> _It's a contradiction in your position - from logical point of view. _



The matter of fact, it's no *my position*, but the one from the link* you *have send to us. Authors Perov and Rastrenine, main Il-2 specialists. Reread them again.





> But the fact is, that NS-37 recoil power was mesuared by *the same *unreliable methods and its figures were estimated as equal or a bit more excessive compared to ones of VYa.


Sorry, methods changed througout the war. Later ones were not such unreliable.



> *You should take in attention a little difference in mountings: VYa were installed closer to fuselage as far I remember, than NS-37. Besides, NS-37 were a bit downed relatively axis through point of gravity*


I'm not sure, early Il-2 had its 20 or 23 mm canons outside machine guns position. Later ones inside, instead of ShKAS.



> *And what we have: 1) most of Il-2 were armed with Shvak not VYa, *


Can you send us numbers? AFAIK 13 420 were produced in 1942, 16 430 in 1943, 22 820 in 1944. Maybe were they used somewhere. No? Notice that the Sturmovik was the only plane to carry them, except small LaGG-3 and Yak batches.



> 2) VYa were installed on Il-10 so its production wasn't cancelled so what didn't allow to install it in 42-43 as a motor-canon on fighters, if the gun hadn't being installed generally on Il for two or three years, in exception a rather small quantaty?


Considering respective YVA and ShVAK production, rate of fire and probably weapon coast was that very usefull?




> *3) why on Il-10M (and on Il-10 last batches) were refused of VYa and was made a decision to install NS-23, if the VYa was so good?*


Don't you know the NS and VYa weights, and *quality factors *respectivly ? Il-10 either had *2 YVA* and *2 ShKAS*, or *4 NS-23*. ShKAS were called "humane weapons" by russian pilots and counts for nothing. That means Il-10 with NS had a much better firepower. But it had 4 23 mm canons, not 2.


----------

