# Me-309: how good was it?



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2013)

Seems the data about the Me-309, German prototype fighter design, is a conflicting one - eg. 1st it's noted that speed was way above 700 km/h, then it was claimed the performance (once armament is installed?) is lower than contemporary German prop-driven fighters.

So how good was it? Is there a definite resource about the plane? Was it a missed opportunity for the LW/RLM not to produce it use?


----------



## spicmart (Feb 1, 2013)

Looks wise it is very good.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 1, 2013)

One of the mystery aircraft of WW2. Not much solid data from primary sources seems to be available. I guess all we can say is that it didn't really impress anyone at the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2013)

4 real prototypes built but many features tested on bf 109 airframes. It seems a case of trying to stuff a quart (liter) into a pint (500ml) pot. 

A lot of changes to radiator and tail planes, Wing was almost the same size as a Bf 109 but a pressure cabin, nose wheel, about the double the internal fuel of the 109 and, on the last prototype four 13mm mg 131s, two 20mm mg 151s and two 30mm MK 108s measn the take off weight was roughly 50% more than a 109 using the same engine. Poor performance is not hard to predict. Better aerodynamics will only get you so far.


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2013)

It wasn't very good at all which is why it was binned in late 1942.
The project went the same way as V-1s nose wheel!







Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Feb 1, 2013)

What I read its speed advantage compared with the Me 109 was not that much to warrant production. The Me 309 was less manoeuverable (at what speed?). It could not do what a Fw 190D couldn't. And the Dora did not need completely new rigs and tools for mass production.
It used the DB 603 instead of DB 605.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 1, 2013)

And the very good performance without armament may have been flown with the DB 603G, an engine that was not accepted for serial production.


----------



## davebender (Feb 1, 2013)

To make matters worse RLM cancelled funds for testing and development a year after the first prototype.

How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of. So we will never know for sure how a production model Me-309 would perform.

If looks mattered Me-309 would have been a world beater. But they don't.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 1, 2013)

The P-51 went into production from one prototype, the F4U also. The P-38 went into limited production from 1 prototype, the Zero went into limited production from 3 prototypes.
The list goes on, evidently everybody could do it except Messerschmitt. Of course after the Me210 debacle Messerschmitt knew he'd better not release anymore duds for production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 1, 2013)

Not strictly correct Tyro.

The P-38 may have had only the one XP-38, but there were several "pro-production" prototype YP-38s, which were significantly different to the XP-38.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2013)

Messerschmitt was also able to do Bf-109 110 rather smooth from prototype to mass production.


----------



## davebender (Feb 1, 2013)

Mustang Mk.1 went into mass production after 1 prototype. It wasn't exactly a world beater. About 1,500 Mustang variants were produced prior to P-51B, which is generally considered the first really good Mustang.

P-38E is generally considered the first combat capable variant. 80 P-38s were produced prior to P-38E.

The list goes on.....


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 1, 2013)

One big difference, the P-51, P-38, etc. all showed enough promise to be developed into a successful series of aircraft.
The Me309 evidently, didn't show enough promise.
Or is this going to be explained away as another one of those inexplicable decisions made by the 3rd Reichs air ministry?


----------



## The Basket (Feb 1, 2013)

The 309 offered nothing new and so was not followed. 

He 100? Hee hee. But the Me 309 I like the canopy and trike undercarriage but war is no time to play with new fighters. The 109 was adequate and jets were the money so lets go there instead.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> Mustang Mk.1 went into mass production after 1 prototype. It wasn't exactly a world beater. About 1,500 Mustang variants were produced prior to P-51B, which is generally considered the first really good Mustang.
> 
> P-38E is generally considered the first combat capable variant. 80 P-38s were produced prior to P-38E.
> 
> The list goes on.....



Yes it does.........but........How many of the first few hundred Bf 109s would have judged "combat capable" in 1941?? Or even a "E-1" with four machine-guns and no armor or protected tanks? 

Those _NOT_ "really good Mustang"s saw extensive combat in three theaters. While not "world beaters" they seemed to stand up to FW 190s at low level pretty well, Guess that means the Fw 190 wasn't a world beater? They were not phased out until about 1 to 1 1/2 years after they left the factory and the British were still flying 2 squadrons of them at VE day. Well over two years after they were built. I guess they weren't very good. 

The German system of ordering several prototypes was better because it avoided lost time if something happened to a single prototype. But claiming fully combat capable aircraft that were delivered to fighting squadrons were prototypes or development aircraft for later models is not being honest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Feb 1, 2013)

I think that hits close to the truth. 

Erich Hartmann shot down 158 enemy aircraft during 1943. How can anyone suggest his inexpensive Me-109G needed to be replaced with a Me-309?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2013)

*HIS* inexpensive Me-109G doesn't need to be replaced. 

However, Sgt. Schmidt, killed on 2nd operational flight might have survived with a better plane, likewise Sgt. Klaus and Sgt. _ fill in the blank_________ and the hundreds of other new pilots lost in their first few weeks or months of operations. 

Picking your best 2 or 3 pilots and saying that _NOBODY_ needs a better plane because they are doing so well is a sure way to fall behind the development curve and lose the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 2, 2013)

From the details I've read the 309 offered nothing over the Gustav and was problematic as well.

The Fw 190D was better bet and an hour spent on the 309 was an hour lost on the 262.

The Germans made mistakes but cancelling the 309 was a sound move And even the best prop job was only marginal at best against the latest allied fighters.


----------



## CobberKane (Feb 2, 2013)

From the picture, obviously the product of an incestuous liaison between a Bf 109 and an ME 262...


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of.



Can I nominate the Spitfire.
One prototype (K5054) first flew March 1936. First production order issued for 300 aircraft at the end of July 1936 (28th?),backdated to 3rd June.
Of course the Spitfire will feature on most lists of "clunkers" 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Feb 2, 2013)

it would probably have taken a number of crashes and dead pilots to get the thing combat ready, Messerchmitt had a bad habit of making weak structures despite criticism, he didnt seem to learn!


----------



## vinnye (Feb 2, 2013)

No direspect to Hartmann or anyone else in the LW flying during WW2, but the large number of kills does sometime reflect the large numbers of targets that they would come up against and a fair number of these would be novices and flying in some cases bombers that were not very well armed or aircraft that were obsolete.
The advantage that the LW had on the Eastern front was that they were normally "up-sun" at a higher altitude and "bouncing" enemy aircraft.
Hartmann learned his trade from vastly experienced LW pilots and put their knowledge / guidance to good use, becomming a superb fighter pilot in his own right.
Would he have had more success in a ME309 - who knows? He learned to make the most of wht he had available, and no doubt would have adapted to a new aircraft had that been necessary. I accept the point that for a novice pilot, a better aircraft may improve their chances of survival. But it does not make them experienced and that is what usually kept people alive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2013)

I forget the figures but in the BoB comparing the Spitfire and Hurricane The Spitfires (and their pilots)_on average_ lasted about 1 to 1 1/2 weeks _longer_ than the Hurricanes. This meant the Spitfire pilots had a bit more time to _get_ experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vinnye (Feb 2, 2013)

Thats an interesting point that I was unaware of!
Maybe it was due to the Hurricanes attacking the bombers and taking losses from their fire and also then being bounced by their escort?
The Spitfires were supposedly tasked with engaging the LW fighters, would often end up in a one v one dogfight as the melee split up with aircraft that were being bounced taking evasive action?


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Maybe it was due to the Hurricanes attacking the bombers and taking losses from their fire and also then being bounced by their escort?
> The Spitfires were supposedly tasked with engaging the LW fighters, would often end up in a one v one dogfight as the melee split up with aircraft that were being bounced taking evasive action?



Which is all great in theory and was certainly the intention.There are,however several factors mitigating against this. 
First Dowding had supposed that the Luftwaffe's bombers would arrive over the English coast unescorted by single engined fighters. Noone,but noone,had foreseen the rapid fall of France and the consequent acquisition by the Luftwaffe of bases that brought these types within range of southern England. There was no plan for seperating the bombers from their escorts.
Secondly radar could not distinguish the make up of a raid,whether it was escorted or not,and the RAF's fighters were tasked to a raid before its composition was determined,assuming it was deemed to be genuine and not a feint by the officers doing the "filtering" at Fighter Command HQ.
Thirdly they were tasked according to their state of readiness and geographic position relative to the incoming raid and not according to the type of aeroplane that they were operating.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vinnye (Feb 2, 2013)

Thanks Steve, what you said makes perfect sense. The concept may have been to have the Spitfires take on the escort and Hurricanes take on the bombers, but that would not always be practical - the situation would dictate whatever resources were in the area would have to intercept no matter what.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Jan 16, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The 309 offered nothing new and so was not followed.
> 
> He 100? Hee hee. But the Me 309 I like the canopy and trike undercarriage but war is no time to play with new fighters. The 109 was adequate and jets were the money so lets go there instead.




You have hit the bullseye there. Have just done a profile for it and nothing I researched suggested it would be, at the very best, marginally better overall than the 109 yet with all the cost, manpower and re tooling to consider to replace it. It had the wrong engine in the 603 with only at the last minute being fitted with the 605. Fact is the more it was developed towards production specs the worse it got, so there is little reason to believe that without a massive redesign it could ever become a respectable fighter, if even then. There is nothing that I came across that anything feasible at the time would have fundamentally improved it in the time available and with no sign that it would be as good as the FW190 it just seemed logical to cancel it and spend the time producing that aircraft while Messerschmitt concentrated on the 109 and jets. Unlike some other aircraft mentioned it wasn't simply about developing out clear faults it was simply a design that did not perform as expected overall. Was a real looker mind even if it destroys the myth that if it looks good it is good.


----------



## blueskies (Jan 16, 2018)

This design had some really major issues. Tricycle gear, retractable radiator, pressurized cockpit, reversible prop. ejection seat. 

Originally earmarked for first flight of the prototype in 41, issues withe the engine delayed prototype construction until oct of 41. Pretty ironically the first flight of the V1, in July of 42, occurred the same day as the first flight of the 262 under purely jet power.

The front gear leg was mounted to the engine reduction gear. This is really nice from a weight reduction standpoint, but it put a significant amount of stress on the engine. Especially when the reversible pitch prop was used for breaking on landing. There were lots of problems with overheating, loss of oil pressure and hydraulics during testing, which is fairly normal for a prototype aircraft. However in flight testing against a 109 is was noted that the 109 had an advantage in turn and roll, with the speed advantage of the 309 being marginal.

Manufacture of the V4-10 was held up by issues with the engine, which was also needed for the 410 program. To this end many of the proposed production variants of the 309 could be fitted with the Jumo 213 instead.

Ultimately the type was cancelled in 26 Jan '43, since the 209 then proposed offered similar performance with far less disruption to manufacturing output.

Additionally the radiator installation seems very bad to me. Messerschmitt seemed to abandon the retractable aspect of it in the later proposals, ie 609.

Oh, and I should mention that the design was sold to the Japanese and the US captured a sub with a bunch of documents about it. Hopefully that cache still exists in some government archive.


----------



## GregP (Jan 16, 2018)

I think the first really combat-capable P-38 was the P-38G. Could be mistaken.

They put the B-29 right into production and it had severe engine faults, along with a few others. The faults were worked out, but the first versions weren't even really "flight-capable," as much as they were "fire-capable." Eddie Allen, chief Boeing test pilot, was killed in a prototype of the B-29.

The Fw 190 was not anywhere CLOSE to ready in prototype form, and nether were most fighter prototypes capable of anything but flight testing. Many didn't even have armament.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 23, 2018)

davebender said:


> Mustang Mk.1 went into mass production after 1 prototype. It wasn't exactly a world beater. About 1,500 Mustang variants were produced prior to P-51B, which is generally considered the first really good Mustang.



The Mustang Mk.II with about 300 produced actually WAS a pretty hot fighter. It could outrun any other Mustang variant before the P-51H below 10,000 feet and did some pretty good work as armed recon in Europe and as a fighter in Asia. It just wasn't a high altitude fighter.

I believe the major advantages of the Messerschmitt 309 over the 109 were heavier armament and improved ground handling.
Ground handling was important when you consider how many 109s were damaged in take-off and landing accidents.
It probably had some pretty good potential, but Germany didn't have the time or resources so it became one of the victims of fighter rationalization program.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2018)

British were still using 2 squadrons of Allison Mustangs at VE day, not too shabby for planes that were 2-3 years out of the factory.
I wonder how many 109s built in 1942 were still flying combat in the spring of 1945? 
Ones that had not been dredged up out of defunct flying schools.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> British were still using 2 squadrons of Allison Mustangs at VE day, not too shabby for planes that were 2-3 years out of the factory.
> I wonder how many 109s built in 1942 were still flying combat in the spring of 1945?
> Ones that had not been dredged up out of defunct flying schools.



Bulgarians and Finns used their Bf 109G-2s in 1945. Ex-Yu got some ex-Bulgarian G-2s (and some other Gustavs) as war reparations, used until 1950 IIRC.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 23, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Fw 190 was not anywhere CLOSE to ready in prototype form, and nether were most fighter prototypes capable of anything but flight testing. Many didn't even have armament.



Hello GregP,

As much as we have been praising the FW 190 in other threads, it had a pretty bumpy start.
New Engine, Cowl, and Spinner,
New Wing,
Relocated Cockpit,
Derated Engines.
All kinds of overheating and engine reliability issues.
The aeroplane may have been operational, but sorting that business out took a while.

It is a pity that the Me 309 didn't have the chance to prove itself as other victims of rationalization did.
(I am thinking of the Dornier 335.)

- Ivan.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GregP,
> 
> As much as we have been praising the FW 190 in other threads, it had a pretty bumpy start.
> New Engine, Cowl, and Spinner,
> ...


Not being a fan boy for any particular type, this post could apply to almost any aircraft once war was declared. In peace time all the low hanging fruit had been picked around 1000HP designs, kicking on from that towards 2000HP at all altitudes was a problem for all sides. If there wasn't a war going on and jets didn't exist the 309 would probably have been a great plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Or maybe not.
The US sure put out a number of clangers in prototype form. 
Not just not needed in light of improved models of well known aircraft but aircraft that never came close to manufacturers estimates and some had some rather dubious flying qualities. 
XP-60 series.
XP-62
XP-54
XP-55
XP-56
XP-67
XP-75
and that is just for the army

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Not being a fan boy for any particular type, this post could apply to almost any aircraft once war was declared. In peace time all the low hanging fruit had been picked around 1000HP designs, kicking on from that towards 2000HP at all altitudes was a problem for all sides. If there wasn't a war going on and jets didn't exist the 309 would probably have been a great plane.



It is probably that, without a war, the Me-309 would've been cancelled even faster. 
Designers tried to install one ton engine (dry) and 7 guns (3 of them being automatic cannons) on a wing half size of what Tempest or Corsair had. Talk about excessive wing loading to get pilots killed - no enemy action needed. 
Have spare DB 603s? Install them on Fw 190s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Or maybe not.
> The US sure put out a number of clangers in prototype form.
> Not just not needed in light of improved models of well known aircraft but aircraft that never came close to manufacturers estimates and some had some rather dubious flying qualities.
> XP-60 series.
> ...


That is also a possibility, in practice the war was not just in the air and its conclusion was obvious by the summer of 1944, an improvement to the 109 was not worth losing production of proven 109s for.


----------



## maxmwill (Mar 1, 2018)

davebender said:


> To make matters worse RLM cancelled funds for testing and development a year after the first prototype.
> 
> How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of. So we will never know for sure how a production model Me-309 would perform.
> 
> ...


Then there was the Firebrand........................................


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 1, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Not being a fan boy for any particular type, this post could apply to almost any aircraft once war was declared. In peace time all the low hanging fruit had been picked around 1000HP designs, kicking on from that towards 2000HP at all altitudes was a problem for all sides. If there wasn't a war going on and jets didn't exist the 309 would probably have been a great plane.


Without a war, I suspect the 309 would have never existed at all. The Luftwaffe would be flying 109C's or D/E's into the late 40's


----------



## spicmart (Mar 2, 2018)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> It had the wrong engine in the 603 with only at the last minute being fitted with the 605.



Why is that?. The 603 is larger and more powerful than the 603.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 2, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Designers tried to install one ton engine (dry) and 7 guns (3 of them being automatic cannons) on a wing half size of what Tempest or Corsair had. Talk about excessive wing loading to get pilots killed - no enemy action needed.



I'm wondering what the hell were they thinking in the first place with such a wing load?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 2, 2018)

Smaller wing in theory means lower drag = more speed. MTT succeded when applying that formula on the Bf 109, and were probably expecting that it will work this time. It did not.
Lets recall that Fw tried the small wing approach with Fw 190, however the bigger wing (that quickly became standard wing) lowered the wing loading to the values accepatble for most of the pilots to handle.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 2, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Smaller wing in theory means lower drag = more speed. MTT succeded when applying that formula on the Bf 109, and were probably expecting that it will work this time. It did not.
> Lets recall that Fw tried the small wing approach with Fw 190, however the bigger wing (that quickly became standard wing) lowered the wing loading to the values accepatble for most of the pilots to handle.



They sure took this approach to the extreme although they should have known of the fallacy of it. But looking at the plane putting on an enlarged wing might have been possible.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 2, 2018)

spicmart said:


> They sure took this approach to the extreme although they might have known of the fallacity of it. But looking at the plane putting an enlarged wing might have been possible.



It would've certainly been necessary.
The Me-209 (of 1943/44) knida shows that MTT lerned the lesson re. wing size vs. weight of A/C, a bit too late, though.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 3, 2018)

Keep the wingshape (looks good..) and enlarge it to about 22-23 sqm. Not sure about keeping the laminar flow wing profile or not. Maybe extend the rear fuselage a bit for more leverage.
Also use larger control surfaces. MTT would mostly use comparatively small control surfaces. Don't know what the advantages are as other nations tend to attach larger ailerons, rudder and elevators in their planes.


----------



## blueskies (Mar 13, 2018)

spicmart said:


> I'm wondering what the hell were they thinking in the first place with such a wing load?



The very heavy cannon armament was for the bomber interceptor/heavy fighter version, and that was with 5 guns not 7. The normal air superiority variant had 3 guns in the fuselage.



tomo pauk said:


> Smaller wing in theory means lower drag = more speed. MTT succeded when applying that formula on the Bf 109, and were probably expecting that it will work this time. It did not.
> Lets recall that Fw tried the small wing approach with Fw 190, however the bigger wing (that quickly became standard wing) lowered the wing loading to the values accepatble for most of the pilots to handle.



I think Robert Lusser doesn't get enough credit when it comes to the 109s design. After he left it seems like messerschmitt just couldn't put out a winning design, excluding the 262. The 190s smaller wing was for the original engine, the switch to a larger wing was undertaken when the 801 was chosen as the preferred power plant. 



spicmart said:


> They sure took this approach to the extreme although they should have known of the fallacy of it. But looking at the plane putting on an enlarged wing might have been possible.



The bomber variant of the 309 would have had a 75cm extension to the wing. 



tomo pauk said:


> It would've certainly been necessary.
> The Me-209 (of 1943/44) knida shows that MTT lerned the lesson re. wing size vs. weight of A/C, a bit too late, though.



The 209II started off as a lark by an engineer in his free time during 42. Initially it was a simple reworking of the 109 wing with the landing gear retracting inwards, as tested on the v31. However it became obvious that this wouldn't be viable as too much of the structure of the wing needed to be changed to make the landing gear work. This lead to a new thinner wing with pretty much the same planform as the normal 109 wing.



spicmart said:


> Keep the wingshape (looks good..) and enlarge it to about 22-23 sqm. Not sure about keeping the laminar flow wing profile or not. Maybe extend the rear fuselage a bit for more leverage.
> Also use larger control surfaces. MTT would mostly use comparatively small control surfaces. Don't know what the advantages are as other nations tend to attach larger ailerons, rudder and elevators in their planes.



The 309 didn't have a laminar flow wing. By and large german aircraft companies preferred non-laminar sections for a few reasons, with the big exception being B&V who had quite a few designs with laminar flow airfoils.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 14, 2018)

Do you know the reasons why german manufacturers preferred non-linear sections?


----------



## blueskies (Mar 14, 2018)

spicmart said:


> Do you know the reasons why german manufacturers preferred non-linear sections?



I'm assuming you mean non-laminar. Firstly the drag rise near critical mach is much greater for a laminar section than the mostly naca derived sections typically used in Germany, and this is the prime reason why they were usually shied away from. Secondly were the issues with surface finish, which I think most companies correctly realized would be unattainable given the war situation Germany was in. There is on account I've read of Messerschmitt showing a wing ripped off a P-51 to some of their workers and imploring them to try and improve the quality of their work, essentially telling them that this is what they were up against. 

Additionally pretty much all German aerodyanmicist were in agreement that the trailing edge angle was the most important factor for high speed transonic airfoils. I don't know what bearing this had on their thoughts of laminar flow sections, but perhaps its part of the reason.


----------



## spicmart (May 14, 2018)

blueskies said:


> I'm assuming you mean non-laminar. Firstly the drag rise near critical mach is much greater for a laminar section than the mostly naca derived sections typically used in Germany, and this is the prime reason why they were usually shied away from. Secondly were the issues with surface finish, which I think most companies correctly realized would be unattainable given the war situation Germany was in. There is on account I've read of Messerschmitt showing a wing ripped off a P-51 to some of their workers and imploring them to try and improve the quality of their work, essentially telling them that this is what they were up against.
> 
> Additionally pretty much all German aerodyanmicist were in agreement that the trailing edge angle was the most important factor for high speed transonic airfoils. I don't know what bearing this had on their thoughts of laminar flow sections, but perhaps its part of the reason.



Yes, I did mean non-laminar (a little bit late, sorry). But for subsonic flight the laminar flow profile offered unprecedented low drag even for a large design such as the P-51 which featured superior speed which much less power. The Me 109 for all its little size is very draggy compared. From where do you know these thoughts of German aeronautical designers?


----------



## Csch605 (Jan 21, 2020)

davebender said:


> To make matters worse RLM cancelled funds for testing and development a year after the first prototype.
> 
> How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of. So we will never know for sure how a production model Me-309 would perform.
> 
> ...


Boy that looks like a Mustang.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 22, 2020)

blueskies said:


> The very heavy cannon armament was for the bomber interceptor/heavy fighter version, and that was with 5 guns not 7. The normal air superiority variant had 3 guns in the fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Me 309, Me 155 / BV 155 all had a laminar flow wing. This was the Germans own work. The Me 262 wasn’t officially laminar but it’s cross section effectively was, it lacked the reflex at the tail but had the key characteristics which was a maximum thickness near 50% so that there was a positive pressure gradient over as much of the wing as possible. It had been optimised for high speed flight. The Japanese had several laminar flow winged aircraft. They may even have beaten the P51A/A36 into service.

The P51 wing had been given to Ludwig Prandle himself to evaluate. He reported its good characteristics but said the laminar flow wouldn’t work in real life due to surface contamination.

Willy Messerschmit‘s Fame as an aeronautical engineer rested on his developing wing sections with very good pitching characteristics. The handling of the Me 109 was very good with excellent spin recovery.

The Me 109 tolerance issues relate to the lack of tooling especially on models after the Me 109G6. 

The performance issues relate to the following first figure is sped at sea level second at max sped
1 Performance of the DB605A engine up untill the DB603ASM
2 Bulges added for guns cost 6 kmh - 9kmh compared to faired over cowlings.
3 Loss of ability to retract tail wheel 3kmh to 4kmh
4 bulges over wings to fit bigger main wheel.
5 lack of wheel well covers cost 10kmh-14kmh

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 22, 2020)

As an aside, the Bf109 used NACA airfoils. Indeed, NACA airfoils were used by many non-US aircraft of WWII, including those axis.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 22, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> As an aside, the Bf109 used NACA airfoils. Indeed, NACA airfoils were used by many non-US aircraft of WWII, including those axis.



The Bf 109 used modified NACA airfoils. The Germans, at the AVA I think, had developed a system of describing modifications to basic NACA 4 and 5 digit airfoils. US engineers used this German developed modification system. The B58 Hustler used them. In the 1920s the Premier airfoils were the Göttingen series both Clarke Y and the new NACA series came out of these. The NACA was excellent and well tested and everyone used them. 
The Go series remained in use for flying boats such as the Shorts Sunderland and the Martin clippers because they didnt require much rotation to generate lift.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Me 309, Me 155 / BV 155 all had a laminar flow wing. This was the Germans own work. The Me 262 wasn’t officially laminar but it’s cross section effectively was, it lacked the reflex at the tail but had the key characteristics which was a maximum thickness near 50% so that there was a positive pressure gradient over as much of the wing as possible. It had been optimised for high speed flight. The Japanese had several laminar flow winged aircraft. They may even have beaten the P51A/A36 into service.
> 
> The P51 wing had been given to Ludwig Prandle himself to evaluate. He reported its good characteristics but said the laminar flow wouldn’t work in real life due to surface contamination.



So when talking about those German aircraft, we accept - hook-line-and-a-sinker fashion - that they have had laminar flow wing, yet the airfoil of P-51 will not cut it? Germans have measured wing profile Cd, and arrived at numbers:
-Bf 109: 0.0101
-Fw 190: 0.0089
-Mustang: 0.0072
(per "Vee's for victory", pg. 338)



> Willy Messerschmit‘s Fame as an aeronautical engineer rested on his developing wing sections with very good pitching characteristics. The handling of the Me 109 was very good with excellent spin recovery.



Willy didn't developed 2R airfoil, he used it on Bf 109 and 110 (and probably on 108).

[/QUOTE]


----------

