# Bf109 success, balanced fighter, or superior fighter?



## claidemore (Jun 26, 2009)

Having been a part of so many discussions on the relative merits of the 109 it occurs to me that the reason it was so successful during WWII might not be because it was 'better', that other designs, but because it was a well balanced plane that was pretty good at nearly everything. 
Basically, I think a pilot who knew the planes strengths relative to any type he oppossed, could find something the 109 did as well or better and exploit it to his advantage. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## davebender (Jun 26, 2009)

The Me-109 was a well balanced fighter aircraft that was pretty good at everything and inexpensive to mass produce. Personally I would adopt the Galland Hood early on to improve pilot visibility. Otherwise it is as good as they get for a late 1930s fighter aircraft.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 26, 2009)

A great high altitude fighter as well. I think the Me109 was one of the best designs of WWII.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 26, 2009)

The other thing to keep in mind is that it first saw service in the Spanish Civil war. I'm not aware of any of it's opponents in WWII that were in service that early. Maybe the Hurricane?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2009)

I always thought of it like the P-40, just a work horse.

All around I think it was well balanced, not the best at the end of the war but a potent weapon in experienced hands.


----------



## renrich (Jun 26, 2009)

Actually the first Hurricane flight in 1935 took place about the same time as the first 109 flight. I believe the Spitfire flew a few months later. I believe the 109 was a very good design for it's time with a lot of potential for improvement but so was the Spitfire.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 27, 2009)

Way ahead of it's time when first introduced (1938?), not so good by the end of the War. However, it was adaptable, and that was it's strong point; at the beginning of the War it was flying with a 600 HP Jumo engine, and by War's end it was flying with a 2,000 HP DB605DB/DC engine, 2-1/2 time the power of it's original engine. I think that was the -109's true strength, that it could be developed so far.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2009)

The 109 actually needed just one improvement to become a lot more lethal in the air, and that was a shift from steel wire control to push rod control like in the 190. That would've made stick forces much lighter at high speeds, and a 109 with light stick forces at high speeds would've been a nightmare for the Allies.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2009)

Soren
Some Finns tought that the heaviness of control forces of 109 at high speeds was deliberate for to protect structures for overloading and so failure. 190 was more sturdy built than 109.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Some Finns tought that the heaviness of control forces of 109 at high speeds was deliberate for to protect structures for overloading and so failure. 190 was more sturdy built than 109.
> 
> Juha



tend to believe that. It is easy to desgn boosted controls, the more difficult task is to put the airframe back together when it rips apart in "high Q" forces.

My father was not a high time 109 pilot but in the time he had flying one at Gablingen after VE Day, he was astonished at the high stick forces at high speed - which were much higher than the Mustang.

The 109 was a superb design and an excellent fighter throughout WWII. The only 'flaw' from my perspective is lack of fuel capacity - but adding fuel capacity to wings would have introduced significant performance issues via extra weight and structural requiements in wings.


----------



## davebender (Jun 27, 2009)

> shift from steel wire control to push rod control like in the 190


This doesn't become a major issue until the 400 mph Me-109F4 appears. By then you may as well do a thorough re-design similiar to the Me-209. Without the necessity to maintain wartime production perhaps the Me-209 would have entered service during 1942 rather then producing the Me-109G series.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Some Finns tought that the heaviness of control forces of 109 at high speeds was deliberate for to protect structures for overloading and so failure. 190 was more sturdy built than 109.
> 
> Juha



Hmm.. according to Messerschmitt the Bf-109's wings had a max structural load factor of over 12 G's, so I don't believe this to be the case. Also I've never read or heard of Messerschmitt or any of his employees ever speaking of this in any documents at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2009)

The Bf 109 was not the best at anything, but it was a great all around fighter. It was not poor at anything (except at range, sorry but the range was pathetic...). Proof of this is the fact that it was the most produced fighter of the war, and that it was used throughout the whole war. If it were not good enough, it would have been replaced.

Now having said that, the pilot has to know how to exploit the 109 and the best out of her, as well as know the weakness of his opponent. This however does apply to any of the great fighters "i.e. P-51, Fw 190, Spitfire, etc...).


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 27, 2009)

IMHO what made the Bf 109 a successful and highly adaptive design was the good choices made early in the development. 

The design team built on an already successful airframe - the Bf 108 - that already proved itself as a good, simple and easily servicable civillian aircraft.

Despite not having prior experience with fighter, the designers grapsed fairly well the importance of speed, and tailored the fighter around it. They wanted to make the fighter as small and light - this was Willy Messerschmitt's greatest influance on the design - as possible, so during the development they could always ripe the benefits of new powerplants to maximum effect. They also made good use of the newest technologies available at the time, such as high lift devices, and continued to incorporate the new ideas in fighter construction. This way, what was essentially a sound airframe for its task could be kept competitive through the war. The fuselage section between the firewall and the tail was, for example essentially unchanged during the whole career of the aircraft.

The construction was a happy marriage of ingenious simplicity, and the aircraft designed in such a way that the end result was tolerant of fitting tolerances during production. This simplicity watermarked the whole fighter - the cocpit was simple, but well laid out, the aux. devices were not overcomplicated - for example pressurized air from the supercharger was used for both drop tanks and the MW 50 boost, as well as to actuate the MK 108. Little can go wrong with such a system as opposed to electrical or hydraulic devices. 

Daily maintenance tasks were much simplified by the use of quick attachment piping to the engine, and simple fasteners that did not require any tool to open to hood for daily checks. Wings could be easily replaced when damaged, since the undercarriage was attached to the fuselage; this at the same time also permitted the wing structure to be lighter, and less stressed by landings. This permitted the aircraft to operate even with minimal support crew under poor conditions. 

The flying qualities were good and the aircraft was extremely forgiving in the air (though less so on the ground), flat spins being next to impossible. The burden on the pilot was much reduced by through automatization of the engine functions, all function being controlled by a single throttle lever and letting the pilot concentrate on the flight. Coolant and oil temperature was also automatically controlled by a thermostat, Again the simplicity shows itself, for example he did not have to bother with selecting the proper main or droptanks, since essentially the droptank was just topping the main tank all the time.. no nasty accidents or extra load during take off this way. 

Especially in the case of novice pilots in combat, the fact that he did not have to worry about the correct engine settings and could readily push to aircraft to near its limits despite the unfamiliarity with of the true boundaries of what it can do and what cannot was probably a life saver in many many cases.

But basically, I think it was Messerschmitt's own design philosophy that triumphed. If you manage to build a small but effective fighter airframe, you are almost guaranteed to achieve extremely high power to weight ratios. Its very difficult to screw it up afterwards - excess thrust is the key to most performance characteristics. One Russian ace I have read emphasized the fact that the 109 was extremely dynamic - it could go from slow to fast, low to high, high to low very quick. It all came down to the fact that the aircraft had one of the (if not the) highest power to weight/drag ratios of all WW2 fighters.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> The 109 actually needed just one improvement to become a lot more lethal in the air, and that was a shift from steel wire control to push rod control like in the 190.



The 109 actually had push rod controls for the ailerons.


----------



## davebender (Jun 27, 2009)

Acceleration and rate of climb were among the best for any mass production WWII aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2009)

Hello Soren
As an engineer you should know that without the weight info saying over 12 G is rather meaningless.
And according to a message on another site by Ruy Horta a Rechlin test report dated 15-2-1939 stated that Bf 109E, flight weight 2200kg (very light weight for even E-1, if correct), could stand up to 8G, after which “deformation” would lead to permanent damage even if the a/c was built for up to 10,8G before actual catastrophic failure.

I agree with Kurfürst that 109 was a good fighter with excellent powerloading and acceleration and so well suited vertical manoeuvres and same time it had benign stall characteristics and fairly good horizontal manoeuvrability. Minuses were heavy control forces at high speeds, restricted vision from cockpit etc.

Juha


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2009)

The 109 reminds me of the Ringo Starr joke...it isn't the best fighter in the world it isn't even the best fighter in the Luftwaffe!

They flogged that horse way too long.

But the Emil and Fredrich were real good fighters and good as anything.

So should have had the He 100 up and running coz speed kills...or rather having no speed kills...and no pilot is going to crawl over a P-51D to get to a Gustav.


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2009)

I disagree. The He-100 was a potentially decent fighter aircraft. However it was not overall superior to the Me-109F and Me-109G. So why make the production switch?


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> I disagree. The He-100 was a potentially decent fighter aircraft. However it was not overall superior to the Me-109F and Me-109G. So why make the production switch?



You is spot on. But you is forgetting that the He 100 was 1938 and the F and G was 1941-1942.

Give the He 100 an extra 4 year development and it would been faster than the F or G.

Also notice how the F looks like the He 100?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> As an engineer you should know that without the weight info saying over 12 G is rather meaningless.
> And according to a message on another site by Ruy Horta a Rechlin test report dated 15-2-1939 stated that Bf 109E, flight weight 2200kg (very light weight for even E-1, if correct), could stand up to 8G, after which “deformation” would lead to permanent damage even if the a/c was built for up to 10,8G before actual catastrophic failure.
> 
> ...



Juha - you are correct about G loads applying to a design weight - not a full combat load.

In the case of a Mustang the Limit load (i.e. load withing design elastic range) was 8g at 8,000 pounds and had an Ultimate load factor of 12g (1.5 x Design Load was industry standard - even for LW).

When the Mustang gross weights increased the structure was not correspondingly beafed up. So the actual Limit load for a 10,000 pound Mustang climbing out over the channel was closer to 6.5 with a 9.7 ultimate at that gross weight.

There were no major wing changes between the P-51A and B-K other than extension of root chord in D/K and dropping the wing about 7 inches to accomodate a smooth lower cowl transition with the new Merlin.

IIRC the 109F wing was only different from the Emil by virtue of cannon/ammo removed plus rounded tips? Did the G have a strengthened wing to accomodate the growth in weight - or remain the same?


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2009)

Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My understanding (however faulty that might be) is the He100D-1 was the first model that could be mass produced as a combat aircraft. The He-100D-1 was armed and the unworkable surface cooling system was replaced wiith a radiator. This model became available after WWII had started so we are talking about late 1939. By that point in time Me-109F development was already underway. 

If the He-100 had been available in 1936 rather then the expensive to produce He-112 then Heinkel would likely have won the Luftwaffe fighter competition. But the fall of 1939 was too late. A shame as it would be cool if the He-100 had been mass produced somewhere. Perhaps in China as most of their weapons were German designed.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

Juha, until we have the document stating what you wrote then it's rather pointless really.

Friedrich reportedly had an ultimate load factor of over 13 G's. So fully combat loaded the 109 would've been able to take roughly the same or a little more than the P-51 for example, which is more than good enough. The light weitgh and thick wing of the 109 attributed to that.

The Fw-190 D-9 had a load factor of 6.9 and an ultimate load factor of 10.35 G by comparison.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> IIRC the 109F wing was only different from the Emil by virtue of cannon/ammo removed plus rounded tips? Did the G have a strengthened wing to accomodate the growth in weight - or remain the same?



What I know is the 109E had a much beefed up wing compared to the earlier Emils. 

I can't say for the 109F wing. The general internal structure does seem the same or very similiar as on the Emil, but I don't know the details of the material strenght. However the planform changed, as did some important aerodynamic details (position and size of slats, introduction of Frise type ailerons)

The G-wing was beefed up, see Kurfrst - Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109 G. : verstärkter Flügel (Holm, Rippen, Beplankung)

The limit load for all late 109G/K is given as 6.5 G at 3300 kg (roughly full take off weight). Earlier G series were rated 6.7 G.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 28, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> I can't say for the 109F wing. The general internal structure does seem the same or very similiar as on the Emil, but I don't know the details of the material strength. However the planform changed, as did some important aerodynamic details (position and size of slats, introduction of Frise type ailerons)


How much difference would the radiator arrangement have made? It was given a significant overhaul in design on the F over the E.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

Thanks for the info Kurfurst. The 109 was pretty close to the Fw-190 then in terms of strength.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> What I know is the 109E had a much beefed up wing compared to the earlier Emils.
> 
> I can't say for the 109F wing. The general internal structure does seem the same or very similiar as on the Emil, but I don't know the details of the material strenght. However the planform changed, as did some important aerodynamic details (position and size of slats, introduction of Frise type ailerons)
> 
> ...



At 6.5 for takeoff weight, the ultimate should have been ~ 9.7G (+/- ) at 3300.. 

Kurfurst - Does your report state how the G -wing was beefed up? The obvious approache (while maintaining same airfoil dimensions) would have been to either increase skin thickness over the wing torgue box (therebye effectively increasing beam cap area or increase the width of the existing beam flanges top and bottom - or both.

The only way a 51D would ever get to the design Limit Load (8G) range would be after burning much of the internal fuel and ditching the externals..


Soren, unless you couple your "13G" statement about Ultimate G load for the 109F with a corresponding statement of the design weight for that specific load, it by and of itself has no meaning.. 

A virtually empty 51D probably was around 13G also - but it wouldn't do that over Germany with a half load of fuel and full loadout of ammo..


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

The weight of the 109F I presumed was known to everyone, I apologize for leaving it out.

Bf-109F weight: 2,890 kg or roughly 470 kg lighter than the K-4.

So that's a ultimate load factor of 11.07 G's for the 109F. So the 13 G was most likely for an empty a/c and just the wings alone.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> At 6.5 for takeoff weight, the ultimate should have been ~ 9.7G (+/- ) at 3300..



AFAIK the Germans used safety factor of 1.8 (ratio of ultimate load/limit load), where as British /Americans used 1.5. So it is better to compare ultimate loads rather than limit loads.


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2009)

Hello 
being in the hurry this is completely IIRC, beefing up the F/G wing began during early F production, the skin thinkness at wing roots increased ca. 50% from F-1 to G-6 and late F-4 wings had ca same wing root skin thinkness as G-2 wing. Again IIRC also innermost ribs were beefed up.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2009)

Timppa said:


> AFAIK the Germans used safety factor of 1.8 (ratio of ultimate load/limit load), where as British /Americans used 1.5. So it is better to compare ultimate loads rather than limit loads.



Perhaps just the opposite T. 

Limit loads are set at elastic deformation point in yield.. Ultimate is 'failure well beyond elastic yield point. The US and Brit doctrine were to use 1.5x Limit and while somewhat conservative, many of the destruct tests demonstrated consistent failure points at close to 1.5.

Therefore - Limit Loads are the ones to comapre as the philosphy between Engineers on Yield points was the same.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Perhaps just the opposite T.
> 
> Limit loads are set at elastic deformation point in yield..



Until you don't know the exact German definition for limit load, you are just guessing. Hence my suggestion for using the ultimate load.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Until you don't know the exact German definition for limit load, you are just guessing. Hence my suggestion for using the ultimate load.



Are you suggesting the German engineers have a different definition from our engineers for Design Limit load? That it is different from the commonly accepted Mechanics of Materials definition of Yield point used by US and Brit engineers? 

In this respect you are right - I AM 'guessing' that German engineers knew what they were doing with respect to airframe structures...If they used a Ultimate Load Factor of 1.8 over Design Load then they were designing well below the elastic Yield point to derive the Limit Load boundaries - That would result in VERY conservative advice to pilots with attendant reduction in sustainable performance.

I believe that their analytical methods and materials assumptions did not depart from the accepted methodologies for calculations of applied airframe loads, with the resultant shear, compression, tension and bending loads required to accounted for in the design of a safe airframe.

I suspect my 'guess' on this subject is a lot sounder than yours - but I will listen to yours. Please explain.

What is it?

Further - Your suggestion for Ultimate Load Limit is what. And your assumption is 'precise' (reference please)or 'guessing'?


----------



## Timppa (Jun 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Are you suggesting the German engineers have a different definition from our engineers for Design Limit load?



Their definitions were probably the same:
-Limit Loads are the maximum loads expected in service.
-There shall be no permanent deformation of the structure at limit load.

Note that the line above does not equal to yours "Limit loads are set at elastic deformation point in yield".

-Ultimate loads are defined as the limit loads times a safety factor.
-The structure must be able to withstand the ultimate load without failure.



> If they used a Ultimate Load Factor of 1.8 over Design Load then they were designing well below the elastic Yield point to derive the Limit Load boundaries



This is quite obvious.



> many of the destruct tests demonstrated consistent failure points at close to 1.5.


I have actually read something to the contrary.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> The 109 actually needed just one improvement to become a lot more lethal in the air, and that was a shift from steel wire control to push rod control like in the 190. That would've made stick forces much lighter at high speeds, and a 109 with light stick forces at high speeds would've been a nightmare for the Allies.



I doubt it would have caused them more trouble than the FW 190D, but I suppose the 109 was in some ways a better "dogfighter". You would still have the Spitfire to fall back on, one of the easiest to fly dogfighters in WWII. I would prefer over the 109, simply for it's graceful and agile flight, without many vices in it. Yes, it wasn't the best at high altitude, but the Griffon engine helped to offset that.

The 109 probably needed a complete overhaul to get it flying at faster speeds without freezing up; redesign the wing, fuselage, add more propellers; but Germany didn't have the time to rework it properly before the war ended. 

It still performed remarkably well, even more so considering it was from the 30's, when the Allied fighters from that time were becoming obsolete, such as the Hawker Hurricane or P-36.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Welch,

With a climb rate of 5,000 + ft/min, a top speed of 719 km/h and a turn performance close to that of the Spitfire, the Bf-109 would've proven probably the best piston engined fighter in the air if the control forces had been as light as in the Fw-190.


----------



## davebender (Jun 30, 2009)

Did the almost produced Me-209 solve the control force issue while keeping the positive attributes of the Me-109?


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Maybe, but the Me-209 wasn't an ideal design from the beginning so it was cancelled.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Their definitions were probably the same:
> -Limit Loads are the maximum loads expected in service.
> -There shall be no permanent deformation of the structure at limit load.
> 
> ...



There are 'contrary' reports and it is good that you have 'read some' and that the results were 'something to the contrary'. 

So, what is your point? That many reports on Destruct Tests do not show failure modes close to the theoretical laod factor of 1.5, or that what you read suggests that 1.5 was not the 'industry standard', or??? What is your point?

Just to be clear regarding the Art vs Science of Mechanics of materials and Structural Analysis of complex airframe under load:

Failures occur at both lower and higher loads in desctruct tests for a variety of factors - namely test approaches that may not mirror the load assumptions the aero's and structures guys assunmed for their calculations, or the analysis was based on over/under conservative assumptions, or the science of structural analysis has elements of 'art' (it does) in the analytical approach.

The Science is somewhat imprecise, particularly when dealing with asymmetric loading conditions. Most (not all) destruct tests fall in three categories - wing failures for high G pull outs, wing/landing gear/tail failures due to high G landings (i.e. "drop tests") and service life destruct tests in which reversible loads are applied over a long period to note spar and other structural failure modes. 

So the first two are the simplest but still subject to complex interactions in design phase (which is why destruct tests are performed). The latter (fatigue life cycle) structural analysis is more art than science

The A-10 wing tests recently resulted in letting out a contract to retrofit most of the fleet's wings and some carry through structure.. Helicopters are a notorious example of designing well Below Yield Point for design limits simply because of the sustained reversible loads applied by rotor systems - which results in fatigue failures early in the life cycle if pylon structure is designed to Yield for Limit Load threshold.

Timppa - you either have a background in airframe structural analysis or you don't. I suspect that you don't based on your comments but willing to be enlightened. Your comments follow along the lines of "uniformed but intelligent" so far.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Welch,
> 
> With a climb rate of 5,000 + ft/min, a top speed of 719 km/h and a turn performance close to that of the Spitfire, the Bf-109 would've proven probably the best piston engined fighter in the air if the control forces had been as light as in the Fw-190.



Soren - I don't claim to know why the German engineers didn't provide boosted controls for the 109 but I am reminded that Lockheed did exactly that for the elevators on the P-38 to 'solve' compressibility dive recovery issue'. 

Boosted elevators worked in the sense that control forces were manageably 'light' - but the airframe somehow lost it's tail in the process. I suspect without proof that neither the 109 aft structure or perhaps the wing structure were designed for high speed asymmetric load conditions that boosted controls would exacerbate.

I do know that Mustang designers provided REVERSE boost to rudder to INCREASE rudder pedal force requirements in dive and slow rolls - as the Mustang controls were too light, relatively speaking for those manuevers - and resulted in overstressing the airframe in certain assymetric load conditions.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Soren - I don't claim to know why the German engineers didn't provide boosted controls for the 109 but I am reminded that Lockheed did exactly that for the elevators on the P-38 to 'solve' compressibility dive recovery issue'.
> 
> Boosted elevators worked in the sense that control forces were manageably 'light' - but the airframe somehow lost it's tail in the process. I suspect without proof that neither the 109 aft structure or perhaps the wing structure were designed for high speed asymmetric load conditions that boosted controls would exacerbate.
> 
> I do know that Mustang designers provided REVERSE boost to rudder to INCREASE rudder pedal force requirements in dive and slow rolls - as the Mustang controls were too light, relatively speaking for those manuevers - and resulted in overstressing the airframe in certain assymetric load conditions.



The wings could take it, but the aft fuselage I aint sure about. So you could be right.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> the "1.8X" factor was a figure you regurgitated with no knowledge of the practices of German engineers, or, it is obvious that airframe structures engineering is not your core knowledge base but you wished to sound knowlegable??



I would have like to continued on this interesting topic, but , OK, whatever..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

Timppa said:


> I would have like to continued on this interesting topic, but , OK, whatever..



I could take it from the above comment that a.) you were interested as a non practitioner trying to learn something, or b.) a practioner debating specific points based on your own experience and different POV, or c.) just being contentious and now retiring from the debate because you are over your head and know it?

While you may not have intended to be obnoxious in your comments you managed (successfully) to irritate the hell out of me with what seemed to be condescending and ill informed snide remarks about a subject you didn't appear to have any knowledge.

If the first description fits you need to go to 'charm school' and ponder more on polite communication. I have to occasionally take a refresher course myself so I apoloogise if I mis interpreted your remarks..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## davebender (Jun 30, 2009)

Was the Me-209 simply too late to matter? It makes little sense to mass produce a new piston engine fighter aircraft at the same time the Me-262 is entering mass production.


----------



## vanir (Jul 4, 2009)

I'm making a habit of starting posts with "from what I've read" in a similar way on philosophy forums I start them with "in my opinion" 

From what I've read the Me-209/309 development was found to provide no significant performance gains over the current Me-109G in production (I assume based on the presumption the DB-605D would soon be available for it). It was a terrific upset for the fighter industry for almost no immediate benefit. Also the DB-603 engine had not entered production yet (for the 309) and so maximum performance versions had not even been bench tested (part reason for the RLM backing of the Jumo engine for 190D/Ta152 initial projects, if Tank had his way the 603 would've been available and the 190D would've been a Ta152C from the start).

Essentially the Me-209 was passed over for the Fw190D.

The development of jet fighters versus piston engine fighter production was a separate issue. Jet engines were relatively untested and had not been service tested in combat conditions, as it turns out their serviceability rates and combat damage sustainability are extremely low. They were a sign of the times, but not a replacement as yet.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2009)

While the 109 started it's career as a day fighter ( in 1936-38 there wasn't much else) the availabilty of engines did hurt it's further development. THe Jumo 210 may have been a decent enough engine for it's time but the decision to go for max performance with this engine did rather affected the the entire history of the fighter. Imagaine a Hurricane or Spitfire designed around a Kestrel instead of the Merlin. 
While in the Spain the 109 did a rather good job it was competing against (or with) other aircraft with engines in the 600-700hp neighborhood. Most fighters had 2-4 rifle caliber MGs and had similar range.
That the 109 could take the DB 601 engine was fortunate and good planning. With it the 109s utility grew, Heavier armament, better performance (even if range didn't change much) and the ability to be used as a fighter bomber with a 250kg load. The Plane can now do fighter bomber missions and with the wing mounted 20mm cannon it makes a good (for the time) bomber destroyer. It has become a multi-mission aircraft. Drop tank on bomb shackles doesn't hurt either.
However it is at this point that the 109 design begins to peak. The "F" model with aerodynamic refinement and higher power engines does show much improved flight performance. However armament is considered by some to take a step backward. Range improves only by the lower drag of the new airframe and bomb load doesn"t change. It is now a better fighter vrs fighter aircraft although against bombers it might be less effective. Fighter bomber and long range fighter haven't changed much. The 20mm mg 151 does help later "F"s.
The "G" models start a reversal of the 109s utility. A larger engine means more flight performance but it also means shorter range on the same sized fuel tank. As heavier armament is added ( and one 20mm and 2 7.9mm mgs are no long adequate) the weight goes up and the performance from the larger engine goes down. Bomb load stays the same. 
As later "G" models show up the limitations of the 109 become apparent. It is no longer a general purpose fighter. It has become specialized. It's armament is too light for bomber interception. One 20mm and two 13mm MGs just won't cut it. changing to the 30mm Mk 108 helps for anti-bomber missions but the low velocity of the 30mm doesn't do much for deflection shooting against fighters. Special "anti-bomber" versions are fielded with under wing guns. While more effective against bombers they mark the end of the 109 as a general purpose fighter. TWO squadrons of 109s are needed, one squadron without underwing guns to engage the escort fighters while the more heaviely laden "gun ships" attack the bombers. Bomb load hasn't changed although I doubt the "gun ships" carried bombs very often. 
Even later models of the DB 605 can't help the "utiltiy" much. While they do improve straight line speed, climb and perhaps sustained turn (as opposed to a turn that bleeds off speed) they can't do anything for the higher wing loading and detoriating handling.
Many allied fighter planes on the other hand could (even if it wasn't smart) change roles from day to day. While many of the "modifications" to the 109 were supposed to be "field kits" I rather doubt that a squadron did bomber intercepts on Monday, bombing missions on Wednesday, and performed the anti-fighter role on Friday. While the 109 'type' fighter could perform all of these roles the individual fighters could not. The small size of the 109 (inherited from the jumo 210 models) ment that the 109 could only succeed in one role at a time. The small size also ment that the 109 never advanced in the ground attack/fighter bomber role either. While the 1100hp versions could carry a 250kg bomb the 2000hp versions couldn't carry anything bigger. And give the 605's appetite for fuel the likeily hood of getting very far with bomb wasn't very good. 
The 109 by wars end had devolved back to a day fighter or short ranged interceptor and a rather tricky one for a low time pilot to fly at that.


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2009)

> That the 109 could take the DB 601 engine was fortunate and good planning


I am under the impression the Me-109 was designed for the DB600/601/605 engine. However early model aircraft had to make do with whatever engines were available while the new DB engine factory was being constructed at Genshagen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2009)

Considering that metal was cut for the first prototype 109 in late 1934 and that a DB 600 powered 109 didn't fly until the spring/summer of 1937 I think that "fortunate and good planning" holds up. Good planing in that the airframe was designed to take the DB engine without modification and fortunate that the DB engine did "eventually" turn out to be a suitable fighter engine. Something that was by no means a sure bet in 1934

If the Jumo 210 had been developed in line with the 211 it might have been good for 900-1000hp. So if the DB 600/601 had been a failure there was least some hope of back up. I don't think that there was such a plan, just pointing out that designing a plane to take alternative engines might be a good idea. Considering that without the Jumo 210 the 109s service in Spain might have been both little and late.


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2009)

1930.
RLM request to develop an 800 hp liquid cooled V12. This eventually produces the DB600.

1933.
RLM request for a single engine fighter.
RLM request for a heavy fighter.
RLM request for a tactical bomber.
RLM request for a medium bomber.

1934.
DB600 engine prototype.
Some other firms like BMW had engines in this competition. If the DB600 doesn't work then one of the other engines will win. 

1934.
RLM specification to develop the Jumo 211 aircraft engine. 
I assume this was insurance in case the 1930 specification which produced the DB600 is a failure.

1935.
RLM request for a heavy bomber.

1936.
DB600 wins the engine competition. Since DB has no suitable production facilities (destroyed by Versallies Treaty in 1919) there was a delay of about a year while building a new factory at Genshagen.

1936.
Me-109 approved for mass production.
Me-110 approved for mass production.
He-111 approved for mass production.
Do-17 approved for mass production.
Ju-87 approved for mass production.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> I am under the impression the Me-109 was designed for the DB600/601/605 engine. However early model aircraft had to make do with whatever engines were available while the new DB engine factory was being constructed at Genshagen.



The original requirement from the RLM stated that the aircraft was to be powered by the Jumo 210. This of course was before the 109 was actually designed. It was called the Rüstungsflugzeug IV and was laid out in 1933.

The original Bf 109V-1 was powered by a Rolls-Royce Kestrel VI due to the lack of the Jumo engines at the time. The V-2 was then powered by the Jumo 210. It was not until the Bf 109V-10 that the DB 600 was introduced. In fact the Bf 109A and B and C were all powered by the Jumo 210. The Bf 109D was powered by the DB 600 was powered by both the Jumo 210 and the DB 600. The Bf 109E was powered by the DB 601.


----------



## Sweb (Jul 5, 2009)

It was a good gun platform and could be used successfully by _experienced_ pilots. It's weaknesses were it's range and armament which translated to short combat durations and air-to-air competitiveness with heavier armed and longer ranging opposition. When it had to break off combat due to fuel/ammo shortage the opposition could still linger and chase it down. Better pilot visibility could have been incorporated earlier in its design evolution. These shortcomings were never resolved. The Galland hood still left a blind spot in the 6. It should have gone the way of the Hurricane and been replaced with another more suitable design like the evolved FW-190D variant and later. 

I always saw the BF-109-Series as having lost air superiority with the introduction of the long ranging and heavily armed Allied fighters. They soldiered on but there was no way the airframe could compete as _experienced_ pilot attrition gave the Axis green horns that couldn't successfully use the BF-109 to its design limitations against superior Allied designs. The same holds true for the PTO in regard to losses of experienced pilots flying older designs.


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2009)

The Me-109 was at it's best during 1939 to 1940 when almost all the Luftwaffe pilots were rookies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> The Me-109 was at it's best during 1939 to 1940 when almost all the Luftwaffe pilots were rookies.



I would not go as far as saying that. Remember that a lot of pilots had experience in the Spanish Civil War.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2009)

A 109E even with 4 MGs was still an 1100hp airplane with retracting landing gear compared to what the Poles could put in the air. Against the French the MS.406 was rather low powered (860HP?) and once the 60 rounds for the cannon ran out down to 2 RCMGs. THe D.520 was a 920-960HP aircraft. The Curtiss Hawk was actually one of the better fighters the French had in any real numbers and the Germasn did lose several hundred fighters against the French didn't they?
This provided the LW with quite a number of pilots who had seen some combat before the BoB. 

The Hurricane's airframe was too dated to make full use of the 1400-1600HP Merlins that were lated fitted. 
The Spitfire could make better use of the power. 
While more powerful engines could and were fitted to the 109 it was too small to have it's armament increased in proportion, and too small to hold larger fuel tanks. 
Didn't the MK VIII Spitfire (used in other theaters than europe) have fuel tanks in the wing leading edges and late model MK IXs have rear fueslage tanks? This might not have given a large increase in range over the earlier SPitifres but may have kept the range from falling becasue of the lhigher powered, thirstier engines.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2009)

Don't know if its true, but didn't Galland himself want Germany to drop production of the -109 in favor of the -190?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 5, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Imagaine a Hurricane or Spitfire designed around a Kestrel instead of the Merlin.



Actually, they were, they just evolved on paper before the Kestrel versions were put into production.



Shortround6 said:


> Even later models of the DB 605 can't help the "utiltiy" much. While they do improve straight line speed, climb and perhaps sustained turn (as opposed to a turn that bleeds off speed) they can't do anything for the higher wing loading and detoriating handling.



I guess you can say that to all late war aircraft - they were all greatly increased in weight, and thus wing loading, since wing area remained the same. Stall speed and turning circle as a result increases with wing loading, but as noted this is pretty much true for all major fighter designs of WW2. 



Shortround6 said:


> Many allied fighter planes on the other hand could (even if it wasn't smart) change roles from day to day. While many of the "modifications" to the 109 were supposed to be "field kits" I rather doubt that a squadron did bomber intercepts on Monday, bombing missions on Wednesday, and performed the anti-fighter role on Friday. While the 109 'type' fighter could perform all of these roles the individual fighters could not.



Nope, you are wrong in this. One of the most important improvements of the G model was its versatality, and standardized kits, and the wiring etc. provided in each airframe. The basic field kits - bombs, droptanks, 21 cm rockets, gunpods - could be applied to any generic fighter of the 109G/K genre*. Say a G-10 could - and towards the end of the war, it sometimes did - fight with a droptank one day, gunpods the other day and bomb troops the third day. Technically, nothing was preventing it, though it probably not effective because the pilots did not have experience in all those roles, esp. given late war training.

* The only exceptions are some very specialized, limited production subtypes, such as the G-1/R2 lightweight high alt. fighter which IIRC couldn't carry gunpods because the GM-1 system was in its place in the wings. 



Shortround6 said:


> The small size also ment that the 109 never advanced in the ground attack/fighter bomber role either. While the 1100hp versions could carry a 250kg bomb the 2000hp versions couldn't carry anything bigger. And give the 605's appetite for fuel the likeily hood of getting very far with bomb wasn't very good.



I agree it wasn't particularly exceptional in that role, but it could fulfill it reasonably. It was about avarage on those roles, worser than some, better than others.

Actually, the early 601 versions (ie. E model) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but it wasn't used because there was very little clearance under the fuselage. 1000 HP and airframe strenght was quite sufficient already. With the long tailwheel introduced, the 109K could take the larger sized 500 kg bomb (and most likely those late Gs with a long tailwheel, even if officially it was not listed).

There were G versions (ie. G-1/R1) that could cope with an 1000 kg load (one 500 kg under the fuselage, and two droptanks weighting around 250 kg each), and I guess there wouldn't be much in it hang an 1000 kg bombload if it would be really neccessary, but the FW 190 was already filling in the Jabo role nicely.

Mentioning the 605s apetite strikes me as an oddity, since one of its fortes were its very good fuel economy relative to others, and the good effiency of the powerplant as a whole. 



Shortround6 said:


> The 109 by wars end had devolved back to a day fighter or short ranged interceptor and a rather tricky one for a low time pilot to fly at that.



Actually as far as the 109 range issue goes, the early Jumo ones had reasonable range, the Emil, for some reason, despite the increased fuel capacity was much shorter ranged, but the later ones were again a great improvement in that field. All 109F/G/Ks had very similiar range, ca 8-900-1000 km on internal, and 1600-1700 km with a droptank. The 109K could be the longest ranged (not counting some special long range recce variants, ie. G-4/R3, G-6/R3), since the rear 'booster' MW tank could also double as a aux. fuel tank of 115 liters capacity. Tricky flying, I don't think there was especially difficulty flying the late ones, not anymore than the challanges faced by all pilots with those 1700-2000 HP monster engines.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Don't know if its true, but didn't Galland himself want Germany to drop production of the -109 in favor of the -190?


Galland was a soldier and had a limited view. The main advantage the Bf 109 had over the Fw 190 was that it was much easier/faster to produce* while it performed as good as the Fw 190. Sure, the Fw 190 had advantages, and Galland was one of those who preferred the FW but then again, there were several pilots who preferred the Bf.

* You'll often read that the Bf 109 could be produced in 5,000 manhours but in fact at the end of the war they needed only half of that. I don't know the manhours for the Fw 190 but it's probably safe to say you could build at least 1,5 Bf 109 for every Fw 190. And that is what really matters at war. We aircraft enthusiasts can all go and on about a couple of mph more or less or roll rate seconds and stuff like that. But in the end, it's numbers and pilots. Americans realized that and that's why they won the war. (And because they had the Andrew Sisters...)

Kris


----------



## Waynos (Jul 6, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Actually, they were, they just evolved on paper before the Kestrel versions were put into production.



No they were not. The Spitfire and Hurricane were both designed around the Merlin, their predecessors, the Type 224/ early type 300 and Fury Monoplane were designed around the Goshawk. The Kestrel was never considered for either type.




> I guess you can say that to all late war aircraft - they were all greatly increased in weight, and thus wing loading, since wing area remained the same. Stall speed and turning circle as a result increases with wing loading, but as noted this is pretty much true for all major fighter designs of WW2.



From sources I have read the Bf 109 always had a higher wing loading relative to its rivals and this meant that it suffered a greater degradation in its handling as a consequence of the ever increasingh power installed. Also, measures were taken on later marks of Spitfire to address the deterioration in handling (such as the new wing on the mk 20 series. I am unaware if any steps were taken to address this with the 109?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2009)

"I guess you can say that to all late war aircraft - they were all greatly increased in weight, and thus wing loading, since wing area remained the same. Stall speed and turning circle as a result increases with wing loading, but as noted this is pretty much true for all major fighter designs of WW2. "

True as far as it goes but it is the small size of the 109 that makes the problem worse for the 109. comparing it to a Spitfire for example the Spitfire can carry a 90imp gal drop tank for the same increase in wing loading as a 109 carring a a 66imp gal tank. A plane with a 300sq. ft. wing could carry 115imp gal of drop tanks.
I am using drop tanks as an illustration. Thinking of it another way, adding a fixed amount of weight say, 250 kilos, increses the wing loading of the smaller plane by a larger percentage and thus affects it's handling more. 

"Nope, you are wrong in this. One of the most important improvements of the G model was its versatality...."

Some of those "field kits" were factory installed and I rather doubt that ALL 109s were fitted/wired to carry ALL the kits. And I think you missed the point. The point was that the Allied aircraft didn't have to have a number of fitters/mechanics altering the planes from one configuration to the other. Hang bombs or fuel tanks yes but detach and attach gun pods? Wouldn't they have test fire the under wing gun pods to check alianment?

By the way, was the 109G2/R1 ever used in service? and no it wasn't the longer tail wheel on late Gs and the K. It was (in addition to other modifications) a seprate oleo leg attached to the first rear fuselage frame that seperated from the aircraft by explosive bolts and parachuted back to ground for re-use. 

"Mentioning the 605s apetite strikes me as an oddity, since one of its fortes were its very good fuel economy relative to others, and the good effiency of the powerplant as a whole."

It may have had good fuel economy and effiencency compared to other 1500hp engines but compared to a 1100-1200hp engine I betting it used more fuel per minute. Considering that the fuel tank wasn't changed in size from the 1100HP version that doesn't sound like more range. While the higher power settings don't have to be used all the time taking off and climbing with a 250kg bomb isn't usually done at cruise power settings. Bombs also decrease range in two ways. one is the drag of the bomb itself. The other is that for a given speed and weight there is ONLY ONE angle of attack for the wing that will give level flight. flying at the same speed with an increased load means a higher angle of attack is needed which means more drag which means a higher throttle setting. Or a lower speed (range) for the same throttle setting. 

"All 109F/G/Ks had very similiar range, ca 8-900-1000 km on internal, and 1600-1700 km with a droptank."

OH, Really? at what speeds and altitudes? and going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% improvemnent all on it's own. While you might be able to fly a 109 1000km on internal fuel are you even flying at 330kph?

at least one account of the 109 describe it's handling as "malicious" and most claim that it was dangerous to low time pilots. Again it is a matter of size and balance. stuffing a 1700-2000hp engine in a 7000lb airplane is going to give you a more difficult plane to control than 1700-2000hp in a 9-10,000lb plane in general. Rearward shifts in gravity don't help either and few allied planes had rather severe restictions on manuvers and allowed aiespped when rear fuel tanks were full.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 6, 2009)

Waynos said:


> No they were not. The Spitfire and Hurricane were both designed around the Merlin, their predecessors, the Type 224/ early type 300 and Fury Monoplane were designed around the Goshawk. The Kestrel was never considered for either type.



You are right about that they were designed for the Goshawk, not the Kestrel. Still, their design history is analouge to the 109s in that originally a smaller engine was planned, and then when a larger, more powerful engine was available, they re-designed them to use the newer, bigger engine.

I do not see much difference, really. Besides, an aircraft not like a human, that once it is born, it has a rather fixed set of attributes that you cannot really changed. Once you re-design it, it will simply become a different aircraft; it can be adopted, the centre of gravity can be altered, the structure strenghtened if needed etc. etc.









> From sources I have read the Bf 109 always had a higher wing loading relative to its rivals and this meant that it suffered a greater degradation in its handling as a consequence of the ever increasingh power installed.



It depends to what do you compare it to. The Spitfire, or Zero for example, had relatively low wing loading, but Russian and US Army types tended to have similiarly high wing loading as the 109. The P-47 for example, had a much higher one, but IIRC from the handling POV it was quite okay, despite the fact that it had much higher wing loading than *any* 109 version..

The second thing to be remembered that the 109 did not take so much weight increase as some others during the war. The early E version weighted 2610 kg, the last versions, 3362 kg (+28%). It was not particularly outstanding increase, Spitfires, for example, went from something like 2746 kg to 3859 kg (+40,5%) and over 4 tons (4176 kg, 52%) if you include the Mk 21) between the start and end of the war.



> Also, measures were taken on later marks of Spitfire to address the deterioration in handling (such as the new wing on the mk 20 series. I am unaware if any steps were taken to address this with the 109?



Hmm, what the basically complete re-design of the wings in 39/40 (109F)? Revised slats, flaps, new Frise ailerons, revised wing planform.. it was quitea substantial redesign, and they seem to have fixed the existing handling problems (which had little to do with the wing loading anyway, but things like aileron snatching etc). The slats design was also changed on the G version, and there were of course small fixes like larger tail units to compensate for the increase in engine power and speed. There were also steps taken to improve its ground handling, the only real vice in the handling of the aircraft, for as far as I have read, in the air it was an extremely fogiving one, being nearly impossible to entered into a flat spin, for example. I have read Beauvais on this, and he literally struggled to do it by employing absolutely crazy manouvers.. it was not easy to do, even wantonly.

AFAIK the redesign on the Mk 20 was address other issues (amongst others, the poor rigidity of the oringal wing under load), but they ran into some serious (directional) handling problems. The new winged one from what I have seen had incomparably better roll rate at high speed, but at low speed it was inferior. I would rather say the new wing on the Spit was to be tailored for different requirements.


----------



## Soren (Jul 6, 2009)

Hi Syscom3,

Galland wanted the Me-262 to replace ALL other German fighters, and he worked very hard to convince both Hitler Goering of this. I don't think he prefered the 190 over the 109.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hi Syscom3,
> 
> Galland wanted the Me-262 to replace ALL other German fighters, and he worked very hard to convince both Hitler Goering of this. I don't think he prefered the 190 over the 109.



It is unclear that he favored the 190 over 109 as a fighter but quite clear he did make a recommendation in circa Feb 1944 timeframe that LW stop all development except for 190 and 262 series, and shift all production to Me 262 and Fw 190 series aircraft.

That would have streamlined logistics, training, deployment for LW


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2009)

That's a bit late in the game. When hanging on by your fingernails you don't make major production changes.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2009)

davebender said:


> That's a bit late in the game. When hanging on by your fingernails you don't make major production changes.



You have to do that when the situation becomes critical.

Clearly the -109 that was under production late in the war was being bested by allied types.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> You have to do that when the situation becomes critical.
> 
> Clearly the -109 that was under production late in the war was being bested by allied types.



I think this only meant that the Me 262 would take over Bf 109's job. Galland voted for the best they had. The Fw 190 was better suited than the Bf 109 at low-mid altitude and Me 262 was superior to both prop fighters.
I'd guess you just read too much into that statement. Much like some do for the other famous Galland's quote:"Give me Spitfires." 

As for the main title of this thread, my opinion is that the Bf 109 was one of the best pin-point interceptors and short range air supremacy fighters throughout the war and balanced enough to be able to perform other tasks well too.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2009)

LWulf said:


> I think this only meant that the Me 262 would take over Bf 109's job. Galland voted for the best they had. The Fw 190 was better suited than the Bf 109 at low-mid altitude and Me 262 was superior to both prop fighters.
> I'd guess you just read too much into that statement. Much like some do for the other famous Galland's quote:"Give me Spitfires."
> 
> As for the main title of this thread, my opinion is that the Bf 109 was one of the best pin-point interceptors and short range air supremacy fighters throughout the war and balanced enough to be able to perform other tasks well too.



Wasnt the 190 better than the 109 when it came to shooting down the bombers?


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Clearly the -109 that was under production late in the war was being bested by allied types.



No it wasn't, the Bf-109 K-4 was competitive with the best the Allies had, but the Fw190 could accomplish more tasks and was a more rugged a/c.


----------



## LWulf (Jul 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Wasnt the 190 better than the 109 when it came to shooting down the bombers?



With the Me 262 in the picture, both were inferior.  Tho it would be an interesting thread of its own to compare the anti bomber capabilities of both Bf 109 and Fw 190.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 7, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> True as far as it goes but it is the small size of the 109 that makes the problem worse for the 109. comparing it to a Spitfire for example the Spitfire can carry a 90imp gal drop tank for the same increase in wing loading as a 109 carring a a 66imp gal tank. A plane with a 300sq. ft. wing could carry 115imp gal of drop tanks.
> I am using drop tanks as an illustration. Thinking of it another way, adding a fixed amount of weight say, 250 kilos, increses the wing loading of the smaller plane by a larger percentage and thus affects it's handling more.



Technically what you say is of course true, the same weight would effect the small plane more. But, I guess where the logical mistake is being made is that you assume 
a, this is a signicant factor or limiting facto - it is not, take a look at the P-47 again, it carries much larger external load than either, with much higher wing loading

b, wing loading is what defines handling - wrong, it merely defines stall speed, and even that, only partially (given that prop thurst also greatly effects powered stall speeds, and generally, the more power, the more air is pushed over the wings -> lower powered stall speed)

Handling qualities is first and foremost defined by other factors, like control characteristics, the planform and profile of the wing, the centre of gravity of the plane and so on. These usually remain the same during the lifespan of an aircraft, so the general handling, how the plane reacts remains largely the same. 

I guess a good example would be comparing the handling of a big SUV and that of a 'get a girl' car for young men like a Toyota Celica. Its fairly obvious that, for example, corning speeds (w/o topping over) will always favour the Celica, even if you put two large loudspeakers in the back and pimp the engine with nitro, simply because its centre of gravity is much lower, the suspension is much stiffer etc.



Shortround6 said:


> Some of those "field kits" were factory installed and I rather doubt that ALL 109s were fitted/wired to carry ALL the kits. And I think you missed the point. The point was that the Allied aircraft didn't have to have a number of fitters/mechanics altering the planes from one configuration to the other. Hang bombs or fuel tanks yes but detach and attach gun pods? Wouldn't they have test fire the under wing gun pods to check alianment?



Let me make that clear. 250 (later 500kg), 4x50 kg bombs, 300 liter droptanks, 20 mm gunpods, (and later, 21 cm rockets) could be fitted to any 109G or later. The wiring for these fields kits (Rustsaetze) were present in all generic 109G/Ks, and any of them could be fitted with them in the field. During 1943 there was indeed a tendency to fit the gunpods already at the factory (given the nature of sorties generally flown), which was discontinued in 1944 since the troops started to remove them

BTW if you check the lower wing section of 109Gs, just outside the wheel weels you can see the panel is not riveteded, but it uses sunken screws.. this is the panel the groundcrew would remove to add the gunpods there.

The various factory fittings and conversions (/R, /U designations) of course were factory only, at least on paper, at least in the sense that is not a simple matter of attach/detach.

I don't get the point about the fitters - surely Allied planes would require armors to remove the guns for cleaning or maintainance, and several Allied planes had option for more/less guns (ie. P-47, Spits with C wing).




Shortround6 said:


> By the way, was the 109G2/R1 ever used in service? and no it wasn't the longer tail wheel on late Gs and the K. It was (in addition to other modifications) a seprate oleo leg attached to the first rear fuselage frame that seperated from the aircraft by explosive bolts and parachuted back to ground for re-use.



There are some G-2/R1s listed with the operational units, yes, but only a small number of these aircraft were build. It was designed as a long range Jabo, and the FW 190G, filling the same role, made it redundant.

There was no seperate oleo leg attached to the 109K, what you describe is for the 109G-.../R1 versions only. As noted already the 109E, w/o any modifications ('cept a bomb rack of course) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but the ground clearance of the bomb fin was very marginal in the case of the SC 500, though the SD 500 was less of a problem.

When the tall tailwheels were introduced, the fuselage got more clearance from the ground, and this was no longer a problem.




Shortround6 said:


> "Mentioning the 605s apetite strikes me as an oddity, since one of its fortes were its very good fuel economy relative to others, and the good effiency of the powerplant as a whole."
> 
> It may have had good fuel economy and effiencency compared to other 1500hp engines but compared to a 1100-1200hp engine I betting it used more fuel per minute. Considering that the fuel tank wasn't changed in size from the 1100HP version that doesn't sound like more range. While the higher power settings don't have to be used all the time taking off and climbing with a 250kg bomb isn't usually done at cruise power settings.



So how much were you betting..? 

Take for example, the consumption of the early DB 601A of the 109E vs the DB 605A of the 109G.

DB 601 A, 330 lit/h for 990 PS at SL, and [email protected] for 1020 PS. This is the 5 min. rating. 

DB 605 A, 320 lit/h for 1075PS @ SL, and the same consumption for 1080 PS at 5.5 km, on the continous rating.

You can see how much these engines evolved, the later one could provide a bit more power, at higher alttidue, without any limitation on use, and at slightly lower fuel rates. 

Now also take note that the 109G could certainly take or climb with a 250 kg bomb at cruise settings, quite simply because its engine already develops as much power in cruise than the ealier engine on all out! 




Shortround6 said:


> Bombs also decrease range in two ways. one is the drag of the bomb itself. The other is that for a given speed and weight there is ONLY ONE angle of attack for the wing that will give level flight. flying at the same speed with an increased load means a higher angle of attack is needed which means more drag which means a higher throttle setting. Or a lower speed (range) for the same throttle setting.



What you say is absolutely true, but the effect is not breath taking. You can actually work out the decrease in speed from the increased drag and angle of attack from docs on my website (see the Jan 1944 Mtt report). Pure drag is the major factor, but even that does not decrease speed even 10%, so you might say that in the rough ballpark, that range is reduced something like 5-10% (given that you don't bring the bomb back).




Shortround6 said:


> "All 109F/G/Ks had very similiar range, ca 8-900-1000 km on internal, and 1600-1700 km with a droptank."
> 
> OH, Really? at what speeds and altitudes? and going from 800 to 1000 is a 25% improvemnent all on it's own. While you might be able to fly a 109 1000km on internal fuel are you even flying at 330kph?



Well, the Germans datasheets give for the 109F-4 on internal 835 km at 410 km/h at altitude,with 355 liters (the rest spent warming up etc.), ie. including some reserves and other factors. With a drop tank, they give 1600 km.

For the 109G, British range tables give 600-725 miles (966 - 1167 km) on internal, at 210 mph IAS speed at 18k ft, which I recon works out to 460 km/h TAS, and 1020 - 1250 miles (1642 - 2011 km) with a drop tank, which is in fairly good agreement with German figures.

Compare to that, the 109E is given with 660 km range on internal, and 1325 using a drop tank (while cruising at 330-350 km/h). 

Clearly, improve efficiency of the DB engines was a major factor in increasing the 109s range.




> at least one account of the 109 describe it's handling as "malicious" and most claim that it was dangerous to low time pilots. Again it is a matter of size and balance. stuffing a 1700-2000hp engine in a 7000lb airplane is going to give you a more difficult plane to control than 1700-2000hp in a 9-10,000lb plane in general. Rearward shifts in gravity don't help either and few allied planes had rather severe restictions on manuvers and allowed aiespped when rear fuel tanks were full.



Higher performance always comes with more difficulty in handling it, it is universally true.
As for rearward shifts in gravity, I have never heard of such in the case of the 109. There were no monstre sized fuel tanks built into the fuselage, and I guess the Mtt team was competent enough, esp. as any weight in the back could be evened out by the weight of larger and slightly heavier props and engines in the front.

As to the 109s handling, I fear I have to disagree, unless the source makes this reference to the ground handling, which could malicious, if, as one pilot put it, every take off was not performed as it would be the first. The plane had a tendency to seize control over itself on the ground, provided you let that happen.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

drgondog said:


> It is unclear that he favored the 190 over 109 as a fighter but quite clear he did make a recommendation in circa Feb 1944 timeframe that LW stop all development except for 190 and 262 series, and shift all production to Me 262 and Fw 190 series aircraft.
> 
> That would have streamlined logistics, training, deployment for LW


That's absolutely true. But I also recall him stating that when he flew the Fw 190 for the first time he considered it to be superior to the Bf 109. Far superior even!

But that was his opinion. Other Luftwaffe Experten preferred the 109.

I read a lot of members accepting that the 109 was inferior to the 190, that the 109 was too difficult to fly and was no longer competitive with allied fighters at the end of the war. These are outdated views which are for starters contradicted by loss figures and by wartime memories. 

And I'll repeat what I said before: the most important advantage - and a decisive one ! - is that you could build at least 50% more Bf 109s than Fw 190s or Me 262s while it was definitely not 50% inferior to the 190/262! So that's why Galland is clearly unaware of industrial realities and sees it simply for the pilot's point of view: he wants the best aircraft available and doesn't care how many of them could be build. Quite understandable. 

Production logic would have dictated the Fw 190 being replaced by the Me 262 and the Bf 109 by the He 162.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

LWulf said:


> With the Me 262 in the picture, both were inferior.  Tho it would be an interesting thread of its own to compare the anti bomber capabilities of both Bf 109 and Fw 190.


Well the obvious part is that the Fw 190 performance dropped tremendously above rated altitude. The Bf 109G-6/R6 and even better the G-6/U4/R4 had everything it needed to destroy heavy bombers. The latter would have two HMGs and 3 30mm cannons with a mere 8 kmh speed reduction. The Bf 109 also offered a smaller target! And again, these Kanonenboten suffered substantial losses, and that's where the cheap production of the Bf 109 would be most suited for. Fw 190s should have been reserved for low altitude interdiction missions. 

Besides that, I remember reading results of loss/win figures from the Eastern front: no substantial difference between Fw 190 and Bf 109 units!
Kris


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2009)

> Kanonenboten suffered substantial losses, and that's where the cheap production of the Bf 109 would be most suited for.


That's pretty much my thinking also. Once .50cal MGs and 20mm cannon became common it was impossible to adequately armor the entire aircraft. So you armor only the cockpit to protect the pilot. If he survives being shot down the pilot gets a new dirt cheap Me-109 to have another go at the enemy (after a double shot of Schnapps).

One innovation that would have helped pilot survival is an ejector seat. I suspect quite a few pilots died in Me-109 fighter aircraft because they could not bail out (stuck canopy, aircraft spinning, pilot injury etc.). Might not fit in the rather small Me-109 cockpit though.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

My idea is that for every two fighters shot down one pilot was killed. Getting them out of their aircraft ASAP would have been important. Yet one wonders how many pilots died because they couldn't get out, or because they were shot dead in their seats. I've seen the penetration values of the 0.5 cal and it shows that most of the armour plates were insufficient except for larger distances. In fact, it made me wonder what the point is in having insufficient armour: better to have enough or none at all. But then some say one has to take the angle into consideration and that the armour could do enough to deflect the bullet or to stop it shortly after penetrating. But I have my doubts about that ...

Kris


----------



## vanir (Jul 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> My idea is that for every two fighters shot down one pilot was killed. Getting them out of their aircraft ASAP would have been important. Yet one wonders how many pilots died because they couldn't get out, or because they were shot dead in their seats. I've seen the penetration values of the 0.5 cal and it shows that most of the armour plates were insufficient except for larger distances. In fact, it made me wonder what the point is in having insufficient armour: better to have enough or none at all. But then some say one has to take the angle into consideration and that the armour could do enough to deflect the bullet or to stop it shortly after penetrating. But I have my doubts about that ...
> 
> Kris



Wouldn't you say this was the tactic of Japanese thinking? No armouring at all was more beneficial to performance and handling than heavy plates which could still be penetrated by heavy calibre machine guns, or the airframe still torn apart by cannon shells.

What they didn't count on however was the attrition factor. Having made a superior attack force, it was out of its element when air combat turned into an exhaustive street brawl. You'd start with often fewer aircraft losses, but higher pilot losses which is unsustainable. Yours get less experienced whilst theirs get more experienced.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 8, 2009)

It's true that the Japanese believed that the best protection would be to make the aircraft light and manoeuvrable. (This was also a result of a lack of high-grade armour and of the requirement to fly long distances.)

But I don't know if I'm really following you on the attrition. First, I wouldn't know if leaving out armour would necessarily mean more attrition. Like I said, most armour was unable to stop the heavy MG bullets anyway. 

The real problem with Japanese pilot losses was the complete lack of SAR. A pilot shot down was not expected to be recuperated. A Japanese pilot surviving the crash could just as well kill him self.

Oh, I shouldn't forget the lack of self-sealing tanks. That should remain a standard on aircraft ! 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2009)

"Technically what you say is of course true, the same weight would effect the small plane more. But, I guess where the logical mistake is being made is that you assume 
a, this is a signicant factor or limiting facto - it is not, take a look at the P-47 again, it carries much larger external load than either, with much higher wing loading "

True but then it did have a somewhat higher take off and landing speed to begin with. Point is that adding 500lbs to P-47 would barely be noticiable

"b, wing loading is what defines handling - wrong, it merely defines stall speed, and even that, only partially (given that prop thurst also greatly effects powered stall speeds, and generally, the more power, the more air is pushed over the wings -> lower powered stall speed)"

I think you would need a fairly large prop to get much of that effect.

"Handling qualities is first and foremost defined by other factors, like control characteristics, the planform and profile of the wing, the centre of gravity of the plane and so on. These usually remain the same during the lifespan of an aircraft, so the general handling, how the plane reacts remains largely the same." 

Many aircraft were described as having detiriorating handling as they got heavier. In many cases because they weren't able to keep the airplane is that same state of balance. Larger heavier radios, extra armour, more armanent in wings on some aircraft. extra fuel tanks (even empty, self sealing lineings/coatings). It change inertia or polar moments and so changed response. 

"I guess a good example would be comparing the handling of a big SUV and that of a 'get a girl' car for young men like a Toyota Celica. Its fairly obvious that, for example, corning speeds (w/o topping over) will always favour the Celica, even if you put two large loudspeakers in the back and pimp the engine with nitro, simply because its centre of gravity is much lower, the suspension is much stiffer etc."

Well, hit the nitro in a corner, watch the tires go up in smoke as the Celica exits the corner backwards
or really pile some weight in the Celica such that the load the tire contact patches are trying to hold exceed their grip, Celica doesn't roll but does slide off the corner.


"I don't get the point about the fitters - surely Allied planes would require armors to remove the guns for cleaning or maintainance, and several Allied planes had option for more/less guns (ie. P-47, Spits with C wing)."

True but the fitters didn't change the guns to suit the aircraft for the day's mission. If you got a P47 with 6 guns it tended to stay with 6 guns and not add or subtract the extra 2 every couple of days. Same for Spitfire. It didn't matter if the Spitfire was going to escort bombers or attack bombers or go ground strafeing. Whatever guns it had last week were what it use this week and next week. And they worked petty well for all those missions. Germans trying to use gunboats for bomber attack and 3 gun fighters to attack escorts, protect gunboats is an admision that ONE figher couldn't do both roles with the same gun outfit.

"There are some G-2/R1s listed with the operational units, yes, but only a small number of these aircraft were build. It was designed as a long range Jabo, and the FW 190G, filling the same role, made it redundant.
There was no seperate oleo leg attached to the 109K, what you describe is for the 109G-.../R1 versions only. As noted already the 109E, w/o any modifications ('cept a bomb rack of course) could carry an 500 kg bomb, but the ground clearance of the bomb fin was very marginal in the case of the SC 500, though the SD 500 was less of a problem."
When the tall tailwheels were introduced, the fuselage got more clearance from the ground, and this was no longer a problem."

Don't you mean SC 250s and SD 250s? Please point me to a refence that says the regular 109s could carry 500KG bombs?


"So how much were you betting..? "

Well I guess I may owe you

"Now also take note that the 109G could certainly take or climb with a 250 kg bomb at cruise settings, quite simply because its engine already develops as much power in cruise than the ealier engine on all out!" 

Maybe, but then a bare (no bomb) late model G weighs as much as an F with a bomb. 


"Well, the Germans datasheets give for the 109F-4 on internal 835 km at 410 km/h at altitude,with 355 liters (the rest spent warming up etc.), ie. including some reserves and other factors. With a drop tank, they give 1600 km."

Strange, only 45 liters used for warm-up, etc including reserves and other factors? German engines must be darned efficient. An Allison could use around 60 liters just to warm up. take off and climb to 5,000ft. No reserve or other factors.

"For the 109G, British range tables give 600-725 miles (966 - 1167 km) on internal, at 210 mph IAS speed at 18k ft, which I recon works out to 460 km/h TAS, and 1020 - 1250 miles (1642 - 2011 km) with a drop tank, which is in fairly good agreement with German figures." 

I think you will find that the the british figures are for true airspeed (speed over ground) which, while it gives a range more than I would have thought, means the aircraft is flying at about 265km/h IAS which actually isn't that far off a Spitfires long range ferry cruise speed. 
Some figures claim that a MK V Spitfire could do 200 A.S.I. (263MPH TAS) at 20,000ft on 36imp gallons an hour which would give it a range of 526miles (840km) with 13 imp gal (59 liters) for warm-up etc. I wonder what the Spitfire could do if it slowed down to 170 mph ASI?
I don't want to turn this into a Spitfire vrs 109 debate. Just pointing out that the Spitfire, which nobody really claims was a long range aircraft in normal condition isn't that far off from the 109 in range. also it is almost useless to try to compare range without speeds AND altitudes included. 

"Compare to that, the 109E is given with 660 km range on internal, and 1325 using a drop tank (while cruising at 330-350 km/h). 
Clearly, improve efficiency of the DB engines was a major factor in increasing the 109s range."

Gee, I would have thought the cleaned up airframe going from the E to the F was responsable for a good part of it. Just what was the impovement, 30-35km/h at sea level using the same engine? 
And since drag goes up with the square of the speed I think we can see were a large part of the improved range came from evn if the 605 is more effiecent than the 601. 

"As for rearward shifts in gravity, I have never heard of such in the case of the 109. There were no monstre sized fuel tanks built into the fuselage, and I guess the Mtt team was competent enough, esp. as any weight in the back could be evened out by the weight of larger and slightly heavier props and engines in the front."

Well, I guess the heavier engines and Props would counter balance that GM 1 tank that weighed how much? Of course the 109 was so light in the rear that when the metal tail was replaced by a wood one they had to bolt a metal plate to the bottom of the oil cooler to restore balance.
Here again we wind up with not only a balance problem but inertia. Take a meter stick with detachable weights. hold it in the middle an try to turn it left and right quickly. Now attach the weights close to the middle so the stick balances and repeat the turning/twisting motion. No move the weights to the ends of the stick and repeat the turning twisting motion. Does the stick "handle" differently even though the CG never changed?

Least you think I am picking on the 109 it is my opinion that had the French stayed in the war ALL of their single engine fighters with the exception of the Bloch 157 were simply too small to offer much scope for development. Even given Merlins or Allisons the airframes were too small to accept the needed increases in armour, self sealling tanks, armament and other equipment. And without their Hispano engines with the prop mounted 20mm the redesigning of the wings to carry effective armament would be another stumbling block.


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2009)

drgondog said:


> It is unclear that he favored the 190 over 109 as a fighter but quite clear he did make a recommendation in circa Feb 1944 timeframe that LW stop all development except for 190 and 262 series, and shift all production to Me 262 and Fw 190 series aircraft.
> 
> That would have streamlined logistics, training, deployment for LW



Agreed. The Fw190 could also perform more roles than the Bf109, and by 44 to 45 the Germans desperately needed a/c which could fit more than just one role.


----------



## vanir (Jul 13, 2009)

I've always thought of the 109 as a high performance version of a family car, like a Pro-stocker whilst the Spit and several other purpose built models designed from scratch were more like Ferraris.

I love the 109, it was awesome and competitive from start to finish. But I'm picturing Willy sitting down with his BF-108 and turning it into a high performance fighter, and the Fw190 being designed on a blank sheet. I think it's a different ball game.
When the 109 was introduced things like production ease were important, and considering the 108 was already in limited production and exercised new all metal and tailored industrial techniques made it just lucky.
The real equivalent of the 109 in the Allied stable in production terms was the Hurricane, a new high performance monoplane readily adapted to existing production techniques. It's not even that fair to compare it to purpose built fighters designed from scratch. But in these terms it is so far ahead of any competition it is everybody else who'll scream unfair.

P-47 and Spit should go up against the Fw190. The Messerschmitt versus Hurricane, Dewoitine and early Soviet fighters like the Yak and LaGG is fair, as these employed pre-existing industrial conditions.

Just a thought.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't know for certain, but didn't the Allied bomber crews fear the FW 190 more than the Bf 109? When the 262 came along though, that was their worst opponent; it was so fast the bomber's gun turrets could barely follow it.


----------



## vanir (Jul 13, 2009)

They feared the 110/210/410 bomber-destroyers most.

190 squadrons were always in the minority, production was never dramatic before 1944 for the type. But on the west European Front the 190 was equipped to the primary interceptor squadrons JG2 and 26. Their job was not primarily the bombers however, it was jumping escorts. The high altitude squadrons 11/JG2 and 11/JG26 attacked bombers equipped with the 109G featuring cockpit pressurisation and heavy cannon armament.
Generally however the ideal was that large formations of heavy fighters separated individual bombers with flak-cannon and rocket attacks, which were then pounced on by 109G fighters or roaming 190's as available.

During 1943 more special bomber destroyer formations were made of modified Fw190 drawn from JG3, the extra armoured "sturmgruppen" which had thick metal plates bolted to sections of the airframe and powerful 30mm cannon fitted in addition to their normal, already heavy armament. Performance however whilst adequate for bomber interception wasn't exactly sparkling compared to contemporary fighters. Nevertheless I've read at least one tailgunner report that his fifties were just bouncing off a 190 that was shooting up his Fort.

So yes the 190 was feared, but I think context and period is important. One of these "Sturmjäger" could take down a Fort with about four 30mm shells and was virtually impervious to anything but concentrated and dedicated defensive fire by a good portion of the bomber box.
That being said, an Me-410 in early 44 could take down a Fort with a single shot from its 5cm FlaK at such a distance it's still a speck in the sky. Fortunately Mustangs were given free ranging mobility to intercept these attacks during formation. In any case I've also read crew reports a twin engine German fighter was something to get seriously frightened about.

The big concern about the Me-262 was from what I've read its implications rather than direct fear. The bomber being attacked would never see it coming, it was usually his buddies which saw the blurred streak making its way through the formation within a split second that were left to comment. They reported their observations to Intelligence, who's primary concern lay with escorts. The type was impossible to intercept during the attack run, and this was of tremendous concern among fighter pilots rather than bomber crews, who seemed more concerned about aircraft you can't shoot down even when you're hitting them, or have such powerful armament they blast you from the sky like a shooting gallery.

True the Me-262 was the most dangerous, but I think it's a matter of the Devil you know being more problematic than the one you don't. And also interesting is according to reports there appears no differentiation between German jet or rocket interceptors, few seemed to even know the difference between an Me-262 and an Me-163, and the Komet was largely ineffective. Fighter pilots seemed to know more about them, and practised a formal doctrine of seeking them out and destroying them on the ground.


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2009)

The Fw-190 was overall superior to the Me-109 as an air superiority fighter only after it was powered by the Jumo 213 engine. 

IMO the Fw-190 should have gotten either the Jumo 213 or DB603 engine right from the beginning. But that is a topic for another discussion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2009)

It couldn't have had the 213 or the 603 from the beginning. The 213 was not ready for production until 1943 and the 603 was not ready for production until 1942.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2009)

vanir said:


> I've always thought of the 109 as a high performance version of a family car, like a Pro-stocker whilst the Spit and several other purpose built models designed from scratch were more like Ferraris.
> 
> P-47 and Spit should go up against the Fw190. The Messerschmitt versus Hurricane, Dewoitine and early Soviet fighters like the Yak and LaGG is fair, as these employed pre-existing industrial conditions.
> 
> Just a thought.



The 109 was competitve to any allied conventional fighter to the end. Conversely many WWII fighters in service in 1940 were not competitive in 1943


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2009)

> DB603 engine was not ready for production until 1942.


1936. 
RLM provides funding for development of the DB603 engine.

1937.
RLM cancels funding for development of the DB603 engine. Daimler-Benz continues development with their own money.

How much DB603 engine development time was lost by the RLM funding cancellation? If you can get the DB603 engine into production 1 year earlier than historical then it will be ready as soon as the BMW801 radial engine.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 14, 2009)

In my opinion, like other "stars" and "spotlights" of WWII, like Mustang or Spitfire the Bf 109 was overquoted. It was certainly a well balanced plane with high power to weight and SCd values. It was small, light and powerfull at the same time. Except that historical fact, some other designers made equivalent or better airframes with the same DB engine a little later.

I'm thinkong about japanese Ki-61, finish Pyörremyrski and of course italian Fiat G-55, MC-202/205 or, -my favorit ones with DB engines- Re 2001/2005 planes.

AFAIK, italian fighters ware not much less performant as the Messerrschmitt planes and were on the other hand much more manouvrable. The Me-109 was a different compromise, and probably not the better one

J would also say that D-520 or VG-33 fighters despite using weaker engines, were at less equivalent to the Bf-109E. With a more powerfull Klimov M 105, Hispano Y-51, or a Merlin engine the would have been a terrific match to the 109E in 1939-1940.

Regards

VG-33


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

But even then there is something telling about the quality of the Bf 109 in that post VG-33.



> some other designers made equivalent or better airframes with the same DB engine a little later



Yes, later. The Bf109 flew in 1935, the Spitfire the following year, and yet both were highly competetive with aircraft designed and built up to five years later. That in itself is remarkable.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2009)

Not when you consider the critical issue of production cost. The Me-109 was easy to manufacture. Hence they were in service in large numbers when it mattered most. The D.520 was not. For the same reason, the Japanese Ki-61 and Italian MC.202 were not equal to the Me-109 series either.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Italian fighters were not more maneuverable than the Bf-109, and there are infact German flight tests concluding this. The Bf-109, G.55 Macchi 205 were considered close in terms of maneuverability.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The 109 was competitve to any allied conventional fighter to the end. Conversely many WWII fighters in service in 1940 were not competitive in 1943



Spot on Bill.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The 109 was competitve to any allied conventional fighter to the end. Conversely many WWII fighters in service in 1940 were not competitive in 1943



I have to agree. It may not have been the best fighter overall, but it was certainly competative right up to the end, especially at the hands of an experience pilot. The 109 was no where near the best, but it was one of the best (does that make sense? )



davebender said:


> 1936.
> RLM provides funding for development of the DB603 engine.
> 
> 1937.
> ...



Hindsight is always 20/20. Fact remains it did not happen.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2009)

*Spring 1937.*
RLM request for a new fighter aircraft. This specification will eventually produce the Fw-190.

*1937. *
RLM cancels funding for DB603 engine development.

Does this decision make sense to you? It doesn't to me. The BMW139 radial engine was considered a dead end and the BMW801 radial was nowhere in sight. Neither was the monster size Jumo222 engine. 

Germany needs a more powerful aircraft engine for the Fw-190 fighter, Do-217 medium bomber etc. The DB603 design offers the best chance to put a 1,750hp engine into production ASAP. The design is based on the highly successful DB601 and you have already expended a year of research effort.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2009)

Again that does not change the fact that hindsight is 20/20. We do not know the exact reasons why it was canceled.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> J would also say that D-520 or VG-33 fighters despite using weaker engines, were at less equivalent to the Bf-109E. With a more powerfull Klimov M 105, Hispano Y-51, or a Merlin engine the would have been a terrific match to the 109E in 1939-1940.
> 
> Regards
> 
> VG-33



Threre is no question that the 1939-40 French fighters could have been improved for a while. The Question is for how long. Add 200-400lbs of armour and selfsealing fuel tank/s. Add heavier radios. (4 channel instead of 1 channel for instance). Hispano Y-51 might be as good as it gets. It is 300lbs lighter than a Merlin or Allison. And with the engine swap you loose the 20mm gun. Could they be put in the wings? Possiably but look at the trouble the British had to begin with and how much smaller the French wings are. And you are back to weight. The 20mm Hispanos not being exactly light.
Eventually you might get the Hispano Z engine but it is the weight of the Merlin or Allison. And if you are using a 1500-1800hp engine you have to cool an 1500-1800hp engine, larger, heavier radiator and oil coolers. Larger Prop? at least wider blades? 
The plane will be faster and climb better than the originals but wing loading is going way-up. endurance without bigger fuel tanks is going down although drop tanks might help. G loading or safty margin will go down unless structure is beefed up. Will a larger or longer tail be needed to cope with extra power? 
Some of the french planes did get excellent perforemance for the power of their engines but they might have been tailored a little to closely to the low power to allow for easy growth. 
I would note also that some french prototype performance figures might be a bit optomistic. Some were tested without armament. Others had only limited flight time so there might be some doubt as to weither the published figures were actually measured or were estimates. French also seemed to like putting in some rather heavy armament in some protoypes. see:

Caudron-Renault C 710 - fighter

Two 20mm Hispano guns (OK the HS 9 wasn't quite as large as the HS 404) on only 500HP?

Of course the French were not the only peaple being optomistic about the performance of their fighters. See Bell P-39 or the4 Curtiss P-46 for starters


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 15, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But even then there is something telling about the quality of the Bf 109 in that post VG-33.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, later. The Bf109 flew in 1935, the Spitfire the following year, and yet both were highly competetive with aircraft designed and built up to five years later. That in itself is remarkable.



There is no contradiction with what i said. Overquoted planes does not mean bad planes. Anyway the "Emil" airframe was outclassed in 1940 by last soviets and french designs. The "Freidrich" small wing airframe was more advanced, it's like Yak-3 for the Yak-1 or D-550 for the D-520.

Regards


----------



## Waynos (Jul 15, 2009)

No, there is no contradiction, as you say. It just points to the excellence of the original design. For while Supermarine could also do that with the Spitfire, for instance, Hawker could not with the Hurricane, and nor could a lot of aircraft of similar or later vintage.

I must confess my ignorance of French fighters of 1940 though and have not previously though any French type was in the Bf109/Spitfire Class. Better than the Hurricane, but not quite up there with the best. I always thought the French were rather better at the fast-twin light bomber than the single sea fighter, though I'm sure any expert could soon pick holes with my opinion on that 

I would love a Putnam-esque reference to French combat aircraft 1930-40 (in English) if you, or anyone else, knows of a good one?


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 15, 2009)

Waynos said:


> No, there is no contradiction, as you say. It just points to the excellence of the original design. For while Supermarine could also do that with the Spitfire, for instance, Hawker could not with the Hurricane, and nor could a lot of aircraft of similar or later vintage.
> 
> I must confess my ignorance of French fighters of 1940 though and have not previously though any French type was in the Bf109/Spitfire Class. Better than the Hurricane, but not quite up there with the best. I always thought the French were rather better at the fast-twin light bomber than the single sea fighter, though I'm sure any expert could soon pick holes with my opinion on that
> 
> I would love a Putnam-esque reference to French combat aircraft 1930-40 (in English) if you, or anyone else, knows of a good one?



Well, numbers are speaking for themselves. With a 880-910 hp engine the D-520 performed 535 km/h at height. The 109E3 550 km/h with 1045 hp. The most impressive was the VG-33, reaching 560 km/h with a simple 850-860 hp engine.

Of course, it is only makes sense with planes with equivalent parameters and manouvrability. And realistic technical possibility. That is the case. Since soviet M-103 and M-105 developped respectivly in 37-39 were already giving 960 and 1100 hp at rated altitude by this time, proves that is was posible to boost the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine.

Unfortunately, i can't advice about books in english.


Regards

VG


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2009)

It needs a better supercharger. 

I would not expect much improvement as long as Pierre Cot remains Minister of Air. Nationalizing the French aircraft industry appears to have been his only priority.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 15, 2009)

davebender said:


> Not when you consider the critical issue of production cost. The Me-109 was easy to manufacture. Hence they were in service in large numbers when it mattered most. The D.520 was not. For the same reason, the Japanese Ki-61 and Italian MC.202 were not equal to the Me-109 series either.




I don't sea the reason why it should be so. Even if the Me-109 was from the crush well adapted to mass production methods, a considerable effort was made by Marcel Bloch and Emile Dewoitine in that sense. 

Have you got concrete numbers to compare production cost?

And even if it was the case, there was no particular reason to remind like that for ever.
For instance, Iliooshin DB-3/ DB-3F reduced it's work-hours and coast by 6 or 7 only by adapting american methods to the soviet industry in 1939.

VG-33


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2009)

Not forever. But the French aviation industry will likely require at least a decade to adjust to marxist management methods. That leaves them crippled during the WWII era.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Well, numbers are speaking for themselves. With a 880-910 hp engine the D-520 performed 535 km/h at height. The 109E3 550 km/h with 1045 hp. The most impressive was the VG-33, reaching 560 km/h with a simple 850-860 hp engine.
> 
> Of course, it is only makes sense with planes with equivalent parameters and manouvrability. And realistic technical possibility. That is the case. Since soviet M-103 and M-105 developped respectivly in 37-39 were already giving 960 and 1100 hp at rated altitude by this time, proves that is was posible to boost the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine.
> 
> ...



1100hp was about the limit for the Hispano Y engine without a major redesign. It had almost the displacement of a Griffon yet was almost 300lbs lighter than a Merlin. Not a bad engine when it was designed (which was number of years earlier than the Merlin) it didn't have the structural strength to stand up to either high boost or high RPM. It also had only two valves per cylinder (something the Russians changed with some of their higher powered versions) and had both the intake and exhaust on the outside of the engine using siamesed ports. SIX blow through carburators per engine didn't help power or maintainence much.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 16, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I would love a Putnam-esque reference to French combat aircraft 1930-40 (in English) if you, or anyone else, knows of a good one?



I believe the Squadron Signal series has a nice edition about the French aircraft.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> Italian fighters were not more maneuverable than the Bf-109, and there are infact German flight tests concluding this. The Bf-109, G.55 Macchi 205 were considered close in terms of maneuverability.



Italian fighters were different enough from each other. Probably Macchi 205 with it's small wings was very close to the 109G. Fiats and Reggiane with big wings were quite different. French magazines (_Fanatique de l'aviation, Aviasport... _) published in 70ies-80ies at lot of testimonies from italian pilots describing a marked superiourity on Fiat G-55 or Re-2005 planes in matters of horizontal manouvrability.

I trust that point of view, with 3 20 mm guns and 2 13.1 mm ones, Fiat an Re fighters were probably a better compromise than the overweighted Me109G, even if slightly slower.

VG-33


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

Horizontal? So the Bf 109 was superior in the vertical? What does that prove??

The German tests showed clearly that the Italian 5-series did not have superior aeronautical qualities than the Bf 109G or Fw 190A. Between the lines, the main advantage they (especially the G.55) had over the Bf 109 was the handling at high altitude and their ability to mount the DB 603.

Also, the late-war Bf 109 was not overweight: the weight did not increase that much...

Kris


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 24, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Horizontal? So the Bf 109 was superior in the vertical? What does that prove??
> 
> 
> Kris



German tests show what they show and i don't try to prove anything. Except that you would maybe need italian tests to make an unbiaised comparison. AFAIK, such document does not exist from italian side, only we can use it's veterans testimonies...with off course usual lack of accuracy.

I would be much to long translate them and you're free to believe what you want anyway, moreover the subject was discussed so many times, for instance:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/macchi-mc-205-veltro-4014.html



Regards

VG


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

I think the big success of the 109 can be attributed to one major factor: power-weight ratio. Like the Spitfire, it was small and light and well suited for the engines available at the beginning of the war. The biggest failing that the US had in the early war was not having a plane like this. Starting from that base it was continually upgradeable and remained very competitive throughout the war, (much like the Spitfire). Unlike the Spitfire, it had cannon from the very beginning.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 26, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> German tests show what they show and i don't try to prove anything. Except that you would maybe need italian tests to make an unbiaised comparison. AFAIK, such document does not exist from italian side, only we can use it's veterans testimonies...with off course usual lack of accuracy.
> 
> I would be much to long translate them and you're free to believe what you want anyway, moreover the subject was discussed so many times, for instance:
> 
> ...


Honestly man, I don't care if that has been discussed before. I mean, this forum has been around for many years and it's difficult to find a topic which hasn't been discussed before. In that case, we can just as well close it down and reread the old threads.

I believe there are few people on this board who have devoted so much time on Italian fighter aircraft as I have. So I know most of the claims and stories and whatever. But I also know much of what is known is incorrect information.

As to the German tests being biased, that's a bit too easy. It was led by Oberst Petersen who claimed that the G.55 was the best fighter in the axis. These words have been always taken out of context(*). But in any case, it clearly shows that they didn't have a bias towards Italian fighters. I even have a transcript of a meeting between Göring, Milch and Galland discussing these fighters and the possibility of taking them into production. So your claim that they were biased is unfounded. Of course everybody is biased to a certain degree. But it clearly didn't show in the test results and that's what matters.

Back on the subject, there were several fighters which were superior to the Bf 109 in the horizontal. Such as the Fiat CR.42, Polikarpov I-16, Hawker Hurricane, ... 
As to the German tests done at Rechlin ... the 5-series was considered superior in handling at high altitude as well as turning (horizontal) at those altitudes. 

(* as a new DB 603 high-altitude interceptor it would become the best)

Kris


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 26, 2009)

Civettone, you said:

_I even have a transcript of a meeting between Göring, Milch and Galland discussing these fighters and the possibility of taking them into production._

Is the transcript in German or English? How long is it? Any chance that it can be scanned and posted on the forum? Perhaps on its own thread regarding German impressions of the 5 Series?

Your thoughts on the subject with the transcript would be a fascinating read.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

Davidicus, the transcript can be found in the German official BA-MA archives. I remember reading them, so somebody copied them. In any case ... English copies can be easily found on the net. 

Aha, found it!!at Autobiografische Bücher von Jagdfliegern des WW II - WHQ Forum



> AWM 54 423/4/103 Part 63, Report of a Conference held by Reichsmarschall Goering on 22 February 1943.
> 
> Milch: ... Perhaps Petersen can inform us on this question and also about the comparison flights in Italy.
> 
> ...



Kris


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 28, 2009)

Wow. The stuff that we find and share on this forum is really incredible. Many "prevailing consensus" matters have been shown to lack evidentiary support. 

Thanks for the transcript which undercuts the commonly held belief that Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2009)

> Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete.


The real problem is that few of the modern types were produced. Consequently Italy had to keep obsolete types in service.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 28, 2009)

I think you misquoted me such that it came across with a different meaning. I actually said:

"Thanks for the transcript which undercuts the commonly held belief that Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete." 

Goering touched on the production issue you mentioned.

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.


----------



## fass (Aug 4, 2009)

If I may join in, the Bf 109 (which I've heard and seen flying by the scores during the war) could perhaps best be described as superlative at the beginning of the war, good in 1943 and on the verge of obsolescence in late 1944. Over its long period of service, there were too many changes in air warfare for a single design - despite modifications - to stay ahead. 
One shortcoming that was never brought under control was the narrow-track and vulnerable undercarriage. The narrow track is invariably mentioned in the literature as a major cause of crashes by inexperienced pilots, but interestingly, the Spitfire's track is even narrower and I've never seen it mentioned as a culprit...
An astonishing omission was a rudder trimmer, which was only introduced with the G-model. This meant that at speed, constant heavy pressure on the left pedal was required. Consequently, turns to starboard were easier than turns to port. 
The major shortcoming was the very cramped cockpit. This restricted the view as sideways movement was very limited. It also restricted the force the pilot could apply to the stick (lack of "purchase") and this was particularly unfavourable because the stick had little sideways travel anyway, resulting in reduced mechanical advantage.
The cramped cockpit was inherent to the design. Messerschmitt wrapped the smallest possible fuselage around the DB engine. That engine was an inverted V, narrowest on top, while the Merlin was an upright V, broadest on top. For the fuselage sections to be conformal to the engine's shape, that results in a narrower cockpit for the Bf109.


----------



## LWulf (Aug 5, 2009)

fass said:


> If I may join in, the Bf 109 (which I've heard and seen flying by the scores during the war) could perhaps best be described as superlative at the beginning of the war, good in 1943 and on the verge of obsolescence in late 1944. Over its long period of service, there were too many changes in air warfare for a single design - despite modifications - to stay ahead.
> One shortcoming that was never brought under control was the narrow-track and vulnerable undercarriage. The narrow track is invariably mentioned in the literature as a major cause of crashes by inexperienced pilots, but interestingly, the Spitfire's track is even narrower and I've never seen it mentioned as a culprit...
> An astonishing omission was a rudder trimmer, which was only introduced with the G-model. This meant that at speed, constant heavy pressure on the left pedal was required. Consequently, turns to starboard were easier than turns to port.
> The major shortcoming was the very cramped cockpit. This restricted the view as sideways movement was very limited. It also restricted the force the pilot could apply to the stick (lack of "purchase") and this was particularly unfavourable because the stick had little sideways travel anyway, resulting in reduced mechanical advantage.
> The cramped cockpit was inherent to the design. Messerschmitt wrapped the smallest possible fuselage around the DB engine. That engine was an inverted V, narrowest on top, while the Merlin was an upright V, broadest on top. For the fuselage sections to be conformal to the engine's shape, that results in a narrower cockpit for the Bf109.



Bf 109 myths, facts and the view from the cockpit



> "Me 109 was outdated aircraft by 1945."
> - The Spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war. Me 109 was equally developed through its life. 109 development's big changes were between D-E, E-F and G-K models, with improved aerodynamics, larger engines and many modifications installed. The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109 K-4 again had numerous improvements over the G series.
> - The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? No. Did it have much more development potential? No. Agreed, it had been pushed to and over the original limits, but it was certainly good combat aircraft. So what was the problem? It was a combination of bad tactical decisions and poor planning for a prolonged war. The attrition of Luftwaffe experten and poor training for the Nachwuchs cost Luftwaffe more pilots then the "out dated 109". It's not as clear as some claim. There have been lots of claims and rumors passed on as fact. The late war 109s (109 G-6/AS, 109 G-10, and 109 K-4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K-4 was ready it was too late.





> ME 109 E/F/G:
> "The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear.* You know it was a high, narrow gear.* And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. "
> - Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.





> Me 109 G:
> "- When I was over here in June, Mr. Tani told that he did not have to adjust the trim of a Messerschmitt after takeoff, what about the Brewster?
> Jussi Huotari: You had to turn it pretty much, if your speed varied. You had to adjust according to your speed.
> - But the Messerschmitt needed less adjustment, did it ?
> ...





> ...
> - An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
> - The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
> - The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 5, 2009)

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
Lovely bit of prose, but maybe just a wee bit 'messerschmittaphilic' (I think I just invented a new word?). There are some good arguments in that article, but to accept it at face value is just as bad as accepting the 'myth'. For me that article is an attempt at historical revisionism. 

The truth lies somewhere between.


----------



## Glider (Aug 5, 2009)

LWulf said:


> Bf 109 myths, facts and the view from the cockpit



There is some good stuff in there but I strongly suggest you concentrate on the facts put forward and treat the opinilns with considerable caution.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 5, 2009)

Don't know if this has been mentioned but my understanding is the 109 didn't have rudder trim. Had to fly it all the time with your foot on the left rudder. Faster you go, the heavier the foot gets. I guess the 109 pilots got used to it but that is a pain in the ass if you are flying. Right rudder easy, left rudder-P U S H!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 5, 2009)

> "Me 109 was outdated aircraft by 1945."
> - The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? No. Did it have much more development potential? No. Agreed, it had been pushed to and over the original limits, but it was certainly good combat aircraft. So what was the problem? It was a combination of bad tactical decisions and poor planning for a prolonged war. The attrition of Luftwaffe experten and poor training for the Nachwuchs cost Luftwaffe more pilots then the "out dated 109". It's not as clear as some claim. There have been lots of claims and rumors passed on as fact. The late war 109s (109 G-6/AS, 109 G-10, and 109 K-4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K-4 was ready it was too late.



Even a really crappy copy was good enough to keep the air war even between Israel and Egypt in the first Arab-Israeli war:



> Israeli agents negotiated the purchase of Avia S-199s from the Czechoslovak government in defiance of an arms embargo that Israel faced at the time. 25 aircraft were obtained and all but two were eventually delivered. The first examples arrived on May 20, 1948, six days after Israel's declaration of independence and five days after the commencement of hostilities by Egypt. They were assembled and sent into combat for the first time on May 29, attacking the Egyptian army between Isdud and the current Ad Halom bridge, south of Tel Aviv. This was the first action of 101 Squadron IAF. The type proved unreliable and performed poorly in combat. One Avia pilot remarked "she tried to kill us on every take off and landing."[citation needed] Furthermore, maintenance problems meant that no more than five were typically airworthy at any one time. The type, however, scored victories over its opponents, including the Spitfire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Even a really crappy copy was good enough to keep the air war even between Israel and Egypt in the first Arab-Israeli war:



Probably had as much or more to do with pilots than with the Aircraft. 

If you are going to quote WIkI:

"The S-199 continued to use the Bf 109G airframe but, with none of the original engines available, an alternative engine had to be used. It was decided that as a replacement for the original engine, the aircraft would use the same engine (Junkers Jumo 211) and propeller as the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The resulting combination of parts was an aircraft with extremely poor handling qualities. The substitute engine was heavier than, and lacked the responsiveness of, the Daimler-Benz unit, and the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller made control very difficult. This, in combination with the 109's narrow-track undercarriage, made landings and take-offs extremely hazardous. A final hidden danger lay in the synchronization gear, which did not work as it was meant to, leading a few Israeli aircraft to shoot off their own propellers.[1]"


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 5, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Probably had as much or more to do with pilots than with the Aircraft.
> 
> If you are going to quote WIkI:
> 
> "The S-199 continued to use the Bf 109G airframe but, with none of the original engines available, an alternative engine had to be used. It was decided that as a replacement for the original engine, the aircraft would use the same engine (Junkers Jumo 211) and propeller as the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The resulting combination of parts was an aircraft with extremely poor handling qualities. The substitute engine was heavier than, and lacked the responsiveness of, the Daimler-Benz unit, and the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller made control very difficult. This, in combination with the 109's narrow-track undercarriage, made landings and take-offs extremely hazardous. A final hidden danger lay in the synchronization gear, which did not work as it was meant to, leading a few Israeli aircraft to shoot off their own propellers.[1]"


It probably wouldn't have been as god-awful without the bomber propeller. The Jumo-211 wasn't a bad engine and it should have been on par with the early war DB-601 by 1948.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> It probably wouldn't have been as god-awful without the bomber propeller. The Jumo-211 wasn't a bad engine and it should have been on par with the early war DB-601 by 1948.



You may be right about the bomber propellor but why should the engine have been developed beyond 1944?

If the throttle response was good enough for a bomber why waste any more time on it. The effort was going into the Jumo 213 even if some effort was going into jets. Once the war ended any development stopped. 
try naming a plane that used the Jumo 211 that had synchronized guns. Cobbling together parts that worked seperatly doesn't always mean they will work together.

THe Israelies may have been able to, on the average, recruit better pilots than the Arab forces. If that is the case it doesn't mean the planes were better or even as good.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 5, 2009)

wikipedia said:


> A major upgrade was started in 1940 in order to better compete with the 601, following in its footsteps with a pressurized cooling system. The resulting 211E proved to be able to run at much higher power settings without overheating, so it was quickly followed by the 211F which included a strengthened crankshaft and a more efficient supercharger. Running at 2,600 RPM the F and similar J engines delivered a much improved 1,350 hp. Further improvements to this basic line led to the *1,425 hp 211N and 1,475 hp 211P*.







> You may be right about the bomber propellor but why should the engine have been developed beyond 1944?
> 
> If the throttle response was good enough for a bomber why waste any more time on it. The effort was going into the Jumo 213 even if some effort was going into jets.


.

It didn't have to be developed beyond the war, by 1944 it was already better than any engine in 1940 had been as I pointed out above.

I agree about synchronized guns, they should have gone to wing guns only, even if they had to use gun pods.

My point wasn't that the Bf 109 was better. I did say "really crappy copy". My point was that it still barely worked with better pilots (some Israelis were combat experienced pilots from western forces).


----------



## Civettone (Aug 6, 2009)

I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell. 

We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell.
> 
> We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...
> 
> Kris


There was a similar divide between those who didn't like the P-38 and those who became the top scoring US pilots.


----------



## LWulf (Aug 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell.
> 
> We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...
> 
> Kris



Why do you think so, Kris? AFAIK apart from some caution needed on take offs and landings the 109 was a relatively easy aircraft to fly and fight in. On the other hand, the Camel was vicious in all regimes of flight and needed a capable pilot just to fly and fight safely.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Well yeah the Camel was really much much worse to fly than the Bf 109. I have debated several times about the Bf 109 against people saying it was difficult to fly and no longer competitive at the end of the war. I don't agree with that. But I have to admit that the Bf 109 was tricky to take off and land with. Once you got the hang of it, no problemo! At high speed the controls were very heavy and that was a downside to the aircraft, no doubt about it. 

But my main point was that the Bf 109 was not easy to master but once you were sufficiently trained it was among the best. And until 1945. Period!

Kris


----------



## LWulf (Aug 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Well yeah the Camel was really much much worse to fly than the Bf 109. I have debated several times about the Bf 109 against people saying it was difficult to fly and no longer competitive at the end of the war. I don't agree with that. But I have to admit that the Bf 109 was tricky to take off and land with. Once you got the hang of it, no problemo! At high speed the controls were very heavy and that was a downside to the aircraft, no doubt about it.
> 
> But my main point was that the Bf 109 was not easy to master but once you were sufficiently trained it was among the best. And until 1945. Period!
> 
> Kris



Ok, then I think we agree.


----------



## billswagger (Aug 7, 2009)

Its as much of an opinion as an other, but id have to say the 109 was probably the dominant aircraft of the ETO for the first half of the war. 
Early 109Gs were top of the class, but i think the allied planes quickly caught up to them performance wise. 

I think the Germans tried to squeeze every bit of performance out of the later variants but to say they were still as dominant would be an overstatement. 
P-47s, and P-51s could turn with them at high speeds where the 109s were a bit heavy on the controls.
There are encounter reports that show the 190 to be a bit more of a challenge to deal with, but there's a lot of speculation there too. 
Anyway, 109s had their day in the sun but later than 43/44 they were easier to contend with.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Late 109s (with ASM engines and 1.8 ata) starting matched the speed of the P-47 and P-51 and were at least on par in dogfights. That they were heavy on the controls was also the case for the early Gustavs so I don't think that's much of a big deal.

Kris


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 8, 2009)

billswagger said:


> Its as much of an opinion as an other, but id have to say the 109 was probably the dominant aircraft of the ETO for the first half of the war.
> Early 109Gs were top of the class, but i think the allied planes quickly caught up to them performance wise.
> ...
> 
> Anyway, 109s had their day in the sun but later than 43/44 they were easier to contend with.



IMHO it is a very very reasonable and fair judgement on the matter, and I fully agree with it.


----------



## vanir (Aug 9, 2009)

I think it is also interesting to note some cancelled update projects on the 109 like the latter 209/309 were cancelled for reasons of production complexity with no significant performance gains. The 109 at worst remained competitive. The trick is using comparisons like a heavily laden G-14 with external stores and surplus engine type, really meant for improvised anti-bomber work than cutting edge fighter vs fighter combat, to test against the latest Tempest MkV or Griffon Spit off the line, as British comparative performance testing had a habit of doing in 1944. I mean that just sounds to me like a political agenda with little recognition for that RAF pilot who actually encounters a dedicated fighter ace over enemy territory.
The simple point is Luftwaffe fighters were stil shooting down the best the Allies had to offer right to the last day of the war, the last hours even. That alone is an amazing achievement considering the circumstances.


----------

