Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What's with the FW 190?
It was on the way since 1938-1939.
As a "supplement" for the 109, not a replacement.
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.
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.
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 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 ?
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.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
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.
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.
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.
It WAS flying and it was called the 109F...
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.
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)
IMHO the 109F that was all that (and in 1940 too) shows best you do not need a 'heavier fighter' for this task.
it's possible compare consume for higher speed?, if i understand the drag influence is higher at higher speed
Someone besides me understands wartime economics. 8)
Unfortunately popular histories of the war rarely consider such matters.
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 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.
I don't think so.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