1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

[davebender]

Those aircraft were produced during 1943 to 1945. Add them up and divide by 2 1/2. You get about 1,000 long range U.S. day fighter aircraft per month.

Germany will need about half that many Me-110 day fighter aircraft per month during 1940 if they want to win the BoB.

 

[tyrodtom]

Totally unrealistic, apples to oranges.
Seeing as how Germany's average per month of ALL aircraft produced in 1940 was about 650 per month, what is your point?

Why would building more of a aircraft that didn't do too well in the BoB, win the BoB ?

 

[Shortround6]

What's with the FW 190?
It was on the way since 1938-1939.

As a "supplement" for the 109, not a replacement.

 

[DonL]

As a "supplement" for the 109, not a replacement.

I agree!

But as we know today there was no replacement with performance!

The only "replacement" with performance were the FW 190D-9 and Ta 152 with bigger engines at 1944.
All other replacements from Messerschmitt don't have the performance.

That's one of the reasons that I'm that fan of the FW 187 and push it that much, because it was the only fighter a/c which has clearly better "estimated" performances with the bred and butter engines DB 601/605!

There was no prototype or other development the whole war from germany, especially a single engine fighter with the DB 601/605 which could match with the performance of the Bf 109 F-4 (to me the best Bf 109). The Bf 109G was clearly a step back and only the G10/14 which were the "prototypes" of the K could match with the performance of the F-4.
The He 112 would be interesting as I described because it was larger but also an a/c from 1935!

Also the Messerschmitt a/c's have the problems with the sticks at high speed, which was much better at the FW a/c's, which were all very good and comfortable, even at highest speed to the sticks.

 

[Shortround6]

This sort of brings us around in a circle to the beginning of the thread.

The Germans needed a replacement for the 109.
They needed it flying in 1940 ( even if not service in large numbers if in service at all).
While the "F" was a large improvement on the "E", even with the same engine, it failed to improve several aspects of performance ( range by much, and armament).
A larger, more aerodynamic air frame was possible without using either laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51. As evidenced by the other axis fighters powered by the 601 and by the Spitfire and even the early P-40s.

Granted a heavier fighter will have less climb than a 109 but could a somewhat better armed (even if not double the armament), somewhat longer ranged (even if not really long ranged) have been an asset to the Luftwaffe in 1940 (maybe) and 1941/42/43 ?

 

[davebender]

German pilots that flew Me-109s and Me-110s during 1940 thought their aircraft performed just fine. Who are we to second guess pilots that flew these aircraft in combat?

 

[Shortround6]

They thought they were just fine because they didn't have anything to compare them to. How many had flown anything else? Performing just fine over Dover or London is not Performing just fine over Bristol or Birmingham (let alone Liverpool)

Many US pilots thought the Buffalo was pretty good, right up until.........

And there was at least one German pilot who was at least a little frustrated by the 109s performance.

 

[cimmex]

They thought they were just fine because they didn't have anything to compare them to. How many had flown anything else? Performing just fine over Dover or London is not Performing just fine over Bristol or Birmingham (let alone Liverpool)

Many US pilots thought the Buffalo was pretty good, right up until.........

And there was at least one German pilot who was at least a little frustrated by the 109s performance.

You mean Galland,- in his book "the first and the last" he explained very well his intention of this statement and in the same book he rated the speed of the Bf109 as always about 10km/h higher than the contemporary Spitfire version.
cimmex

 

[Vincenzo]

The figures are from an Alfred Price book "Spitfire" which seems to be a combination of two previous books. The Figures are supposed to be from a August 1942 document by the Air Tactics dept of the Air Ministry as a guide for optimum engine settings to use when over enemy held territory. The numbers I used were the optimum settings for boost and rpm (high boost and low rpm) high arm and low boost could use around 5 gallons more per hour for the same speed.

it's possible compare consume for higher speed?, if i understand the drag influence is higher at higher speed

 

[Tante Ju]

Plain a simple the Germans dropped the ball.

1934 (roughly) the Germans start work on the 109 and British start on the Hawker Hurricane.
......
The Germans had the oldest of the aircraft. By 1938-39 it needed a successor on the way, not a supplement and not "tweaks". They did a good job with the "F" but that should have been holding the line for the 209/309/whatever. Granted some of the British designs didn't work that well but at least they were trying for something new in 1938/39 and not expecting the Hurricane-Spitfire to go on forever.

The Germans had the oldest aircraft - and also probably the best in 1939 as soon everyone experienced... I am always worn of this sort of arguement. Yes, Hurricane and 109 was conceived at around same time, but they did NOT represent the same level of engineering and design levels. 109 was lightyears ahead in aerodynamic, construction and production technologies, just as it was somewhat ahead to even the Hawker's successor, the Spitfire too. Which is why it could be successfully adopted for new requirements and remain in production for so long and the Hawker fighter could not.

That is not a detriment to the Hawker design team, they intended to do just that, make an interim fighter design that could take advantage of existing British a/c industry production technology and capacity. To argue on this basis that the 109 was just as outdated as the Hawker without taking into account the fundemental differences in design is flawed logic imho.

The Germans needed a replacement for the 109.

I disagree. They did not, unless it was a jet. The many wannabee replacements that could not surprass the 109 overall, even within Mtt's own house show that. The design was sound and stood the test of time.

The earliest possible replacement could be a (non boosted to keep things real) a Fw 190D in 1943 with either Jumo 213s or equivalent DB 603. Both engines were available. But this would require scrapping the Me 410 / Ju 188 etc. and leaving the LW w/o new attack type aircraft. Plus also 109s could be also fitted with 603/213, probably again with greater performance and would be a viable alternative for fighter application, since they are cheaper.

And that sums it up very well BTW. Performance and Price was a combination that made the 109 so successfull from the very beginning.

They needed it flying in 1940 ( even if not service in large numbers if in service at all).

It WAS flying and it was called the 109F...

While the "F" was a large improvement on the "E", even with the same engine, it failed to improve several aspects of performance ( range by much, and armament).

I disagree again - specifically the F had 2.5 times the range of the old E and about 1.66 - 3.9 times the armamement... so while you say the F wasn't that much of an improvement over the previous E, it quite simply factual wrong, so is your conclusion.

A larger, more aerodynamic air frame was possible without using either laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51. As evidenced by the other axis fighters powered by the 601 and by the Spitfire and even the early P-40s.

Problem is none of the above you mention were any more aerodynamic, in fact the opposite is true. P-40 aerodynamics?! Why replace an aerodynamically very efficient airframe with a less capability?

Just looking at the MC 202 shows the flaws of the arguement... its contemporary to the 109F in development, the armament was limited two just two HMGs, no ability to carry larger bombs under the fuselage like the 109 (so much for heavier armament) practically the same amount of fuel, the same or less range etc AND was slower AND took three times more to produce than one 109. It wasn't a 'larger' airframe either - unless you count a whopping 0.7 sq. m. of wing area increase as such. What the MC 202 did was essentially introducing was a fuel tank system of three fuel tanks that made it grossly complex, took up much more space than needed, eliminated the best spot (motor cannon) for armament, introduced two tiny but flammable fuel tanks in the wings. It was a mess internally.

Granted a heavier fighter will have less climb than a 109 but could a somewhat better armed (even if not double the armament), somewhat longer ranged (even if not really long ranged) have been an asset to the Luftwaffe in 1940 (maybe) and 1941/42/43 ?

IMHO the 109F that was all that (and in 1940 too) shows best you do not need a 'heavier fighter' for this task.

 

[davebender]

The earliest possible replacement could be a (non boosted to keep things real) a Fw 190D in 1943 with either Jumo 213s or equivalent DB 603. Both engines were available. But this would require scrapping the Me 410 / Ju 188 etc

RLM cancelled funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940. Without this disastrous decision the DB603 engine could almost certainly be in mass production during 1941. Right on time to power the new Fw-190.

However even if Germany produces the Fw-190C from 1941 onward they still need low cost Me-109s to bulk out fighter numbers. The Me-109 was ideal for medium / low altitude combat from crude forward area airfields in the Soviet Union. JG52 flew Me-109s for the entire war and they are the most successful fighter wing in history (over 10,000 kills).

 

[Shortround6]

Oh man, where to start.

The Germans had the oldest aircraft - and also probably the best in 1939 as soon everyone experienced... I am always worn of this sort of arguement. Yes, Hurricane and 109 was conceived at around same time, but they did NOT represent the same level of engineering and design levels. 109 was lightyears ahead in aerodynamic, construction and production technologies, just as it was somewhat ahead to even the Hawker's successor, the Spitfire too. Which is why it could be successfully adopted for new requirements and remain in production for so long and the Hawker fighter could not.

I will grant that the 109 was ahead of the Hurricane in construction and production technologies. Aerodynamic is more questionable, the 109 did use more "gimmicks". The Spitfire was not the Hurricanes successor, they were ordered into production the same month. The Hurricanes successor was the Typhoon/Tornado. Like the 109, it was not intended to keep the Spitfire around for 10 years or more, and like the 109 it was the failure of of some of the successors and the adaptability of both ( and desperation at times) that kept them in production for so long.

That is not a detriment to the Hawker design team, they intended to do just that, make an interim fighter design that could take advantage of existing British a/c industry production technology and capacity. To argue on this basis that the 109 was just as outdated as the Hawker without taking into account the fundemental differences in design is flawed logic imho.

The 109 was outdated in part because of the initial requirements. Armament of 2 rifle caliber machine guns OR 1 motor cannon. It's small size meant it was not as adaptable as some other aircraft. This part of the penalty paid by being among the first. Needs and requirements change and some times the first of a new generation are locked into a form that cannot be changed (as well as later models of that generation can be) to meet the new needs and requirements. In some cases it is just luck.

I disagree. They did not, unless it was a jet. The many wannabee replacements that could not surprass the 109 overall, even within Mtt's own house show that. The design was sound and stood the test of time.

I see. Mtt's own house had achieved perfection, or close to it, for the single engine piston fighter in the mid/late 30s and NOBODY could do any better because Mtt's own house failed to do so????
It did not stand the test of time. It went from being a very good all round fighter ( as good or better than anything else at the time) to a specialized point defense interceptor.

Plus also 109s could be also fitted with 603/213, probably again with greater performance and would be a viable alternative for fighter application, since they are cheaper.

OK, I am not an aircraft engineer but putting those engines in a 109 might be just a bit difficult. Another 150-160kg not including the larger cooling system and bigger propeller? How big is the counter weight in the tail?

While the 213 might "fit" (roughly the same height and width and only 225-230mm longer) the 603 is another story. 70mm wider, 120mm taller and 450mm longer? maybe if you take out the fuselage guns???

It WAS flying and it was called the 109F...

Well we are back to the subject at hand and not wild dreams from the bunker

The "F" powered by the same engine as an E-4/N certainly shows that the "E" was hardly the last word in aerodynamic refinement. Which is rather what this thread is about. Could another plane have been made that perhaps traded some of the "F"s performance for greater range and heavier armament in 1940/41?

I disagree again - specifically the F had 2.5 times the range of the old E and about 1.66 - 3.9 times the armamement... so while you say the F wasn't that much of an improvement over the previous E, it quite simply factual wrong, so is your conclusion.

Can you please direct me to sources that show the "F" had 2.5 times the range using the same fuel load and using the same throttle settings or the same cruising speed?

I really like the bit about the armament too. ONE 20mm gun with 60 rounds and TWO 7.9mm mg with 500rpg are 1.66 times the firepower of TWO 20mm guns with 60rpg and TWO 7.9mm mgs with 1000rpg?

More later.

 

[Shortround6]

Problem is none of the above you mention were any more aerodynamic, in fact the opposite is true. P-40 aerodynamics?!

Keep laughing, I was comparing the P-40C to the 109E. P-40C had an Allison V-1710-33 which had 1040hp for take off (5 min) and 1040hp at 14,300ft ( some sources say 15,000ft) 4333 meters (5min). The 601Aa had 1175PS at sea level for take off (1 min) and 1045PS at sea level (5 min) and 1050PS at 4100 meters (30 min).The P-40C is about 1600lbs heavier (27%) and has 69 sq ft more wing area (33%) yet the two planes are within just a few MPH of each other at both sea level and around 15,000ft.
The P-40C can't climb worth beans and has several other attributes that are not the equal of the 109E but when it comes to streamlining and drag the 109E, considering it's smaller size, is rather behind the P-40C and the P-40 is using a wing from 1935.

Why replace an aerodynamically very efficient airframe with a less capability?

I think you have that backwards, Why NOT replace an aerodynamically very inefficient airframe with a MORE capable one?

Just looking at the MC 202 shows the flaws of the arguement... its contemporary to the 109F in development, the armament was limited two just two HMGs, no ability to carry larger bombs under the fuselage like the 109 (so much for heavier armament)

Considering that ALL of the mentioned aircraft were brought into the discussion to prove that an airframe, using the same engine as a 109E, could be built having superior performance to the 109E without using laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51, I am not sure how the fact that the MC 202 wasn't as good as the 109F shows the flaw of the argument, The 109F was also used as an example of a better aircraft than the E using the same engine.
BTW the Italian 12.7mgs were not very good and were very heavy for their power, they weigh more than 20mm MG/FF (minus drum) and each round weighs about 82 grams( average) compared to the 162-182 grams of a 20mm MG/FF round. With up to 400rpg for the 12.7s the Italian armament, while not as effective, is not as light as you are inferring. Some of them also carried a pair of 7.7mm machine guns with 500rpg. Total weight of guns and ammo exceeds that of the 109E-3.
BTW, while the MC 202 could not carry a "larger" bomb under the fuselage (large being a 250kg bomb?) some could carry a a 160kg bomb under reach wing (320kg total).

We are trying to compare aerodynamic form, Perhaps the Italians or japanese or whoever could have done a much better job of production engineering their aircraft But such engineering doesn't affect things much in wind tunnels or flight tests. It is imortant in considering the overall capabilities of an aircraft type but it is a smoke screen when trying to compare specific performance attributes and the reasons for them.

IMHO the 109F that was all that (and in 1940 too) shows best you do not need a 'heavier fighter' for this task.

On the contrary, it does show you need a heavier fighter in 1940. The 1940 versions of the 109F had crap for armament. Not a real fault of the 109 itself, The programs for the MG 151 and Mg 131 were running behind schedule, as was the program for the DB 601E. Even when they did reach production, or especially when they reached production, a single 20mm cannon through the propeller (with a pair of 7.9mm machine guns) wasn't exactly first class armament. It worked, of sorts, but lets not keep kidding our selves that it was really world class.

 

[The Basket]

I disagree about the Spitfire. Later models could still match performance wise any other fighter...even new designs.

Of course with shorter range and small bomb loads.

The 109 was simply too cheap and too easy to make to drop. And it could still be competitive in later marks too.

The 190 was just around the corner which answered all the 109s weaknesses so I say the best fighter may have been the Fw 190 operational in 1940.

You can either go Yak 3 or P-47....and I think most Europeans would go Yak.

 

[Shortround6]

it's possible compare consume for higher speed?, if i understand the drag influence is higher at higher speed

Comparison at high speed from one fighter to another ( especially allied to German aircraft) get increasingly inaccurate. At cruising speeds the plane engines are running in lean condition, trying for best specific fuel consumption. As speeds increase the mixture goes to rich with excess fuel being used both to cool the intake charge ( on non direct fuel injection planes) and cool the inside of the cylinders ( both types of planes??). A Spitfire V could use 150 Imp gal an hour at 16lbs boost ( actually for only 5 minutes?) but a lot of that fuel was not being used for power, it was being used as engine coolant. A Merlin 45 making 1515hp has a SPC of 0.742lb/hp/hour which is way different than the .50 or under it can get while cruising. Without knowing how much is being used for cooling purposes trying to compare drag by comparing fuel used at high speed gets much more inacccurate than at cruising speeds.

 

[davebender]

Someone besides me understands wartime economics. 8)

Unfortunately popular histories of the war rarely consider such matters.

 

[krieghund]

Someone besides me understands wartime economics. 8)

Unfortunately popular histories of the war rarely consider such matters.

You forgot about politics which in this case can be a bigger player than common sense and economics.

 

[davebender]

Politics tend to fall by the wayside when a nation is fighting for survival as was the case for 1940 Germany. Peacetime military production is an entirely different matter.

 

[tyrodtom]

Politics tend to fall by the wayside when a nation is fighting for survival as was the case for 1940 Germany. Peacetime military production is an entirely different matter.

Who in 1940 Germany thought they were fighting for their survival ? The reason so many projects of that time period got underfunded or cancelled was because too many people in the 3rd Reich leadership though the war was as much as won, and there was no need to spend money on future projects that would mature after the war was over.

Politics was very much alive in 1940 Germany.

 

[davebender]

The reason so many projects of that time period got underfunded or cancelled was because too many people in the 3rd Reich leadership though the war was as much as won

I don't think so.

Chancellor Hitler had no previous political or foreign policy experience. Nor did he have previous experience running a major university or corporation.

The Wehrmacht was better off but not much better. The Luftwaffe was created from scratch. For all practical purposes so was the German Navy. The Heer had a 100,000 man professional core to train millions of draftees from 1935 onward.

IMO important German projects were underfunded or cancelled because national leaders were mostly green as grass. They lacked experience necessary to differentiate between essential, nice to have and complete waste of money (i.e. H class battleships).