Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939

[parsifal]

What spinner mounted cannon in '39????
and imho the armour came before on 109

The E-3 was the most up to date subtype in 1939. According to most sources, "The Bf 109E-3 had a provision for a 20-mm MG FF cannon firing through the prop spinner, however the cannon had proved unreliable, due to overheating, and was seldom used operationally". ( Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Germany

All but the first 77 of the Spit IA were fitted with armoured windscreens and armoured firewalls. This means that the Spit went to war with at least some armour protection. Later additional back armour was also fitted, which I understand began just before the BoF . AFAIK, no armour was fitted to the 109 until the introduction of the E-4 subtype, which began to arrive midway through the BoB. To be fair armour was retrofitted to both the E-1 and E-3 subtypes.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal,
The idea is the best fighter available when the war began, not when it ended.

The spit was a bit cramped too, if that is a factor, go for the Hurricane.

The original brief for this thread was to consider all aspect of the fighters, not just their performance. Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit

Dont disagree with the second comment, but it was positively capacious compared to the 109. The 109 had the smallest profile of any fighter in 1939, and whilst this conferred certain benefits as far as target size was concerned, it came at the price of making the cockpit very cramped. IMO it was considerably more cramped than the Spitfire.

 

[vanir]

The 109D had a very short operational life due to unreliability of the DB600 engine, pilots said they prefered the B and C. Very few were made, and all those early versions were really developmental types so that in a manner of speaking the Emil was really the first truly operational, mass produced 109 (all earlier versions were in limited production only). The B and C also shared all engine types and so the only tell between those two was armament (the C had provision for guns in the wings). Most of the 109D that were produced went to zerstörer squadrons awaiting the Daimler engine 110C in 1939-40. The 110C was not in the majority until the BoF (in the BoP the 109D was used widely, I have squadron listings and OOB). The earlier 110s were also simply operational development types not really intended for combat formation and not in mass production.
The simple truth is the myth of Luftwaffe air superiority in 1939 really was just successful propaganda, and the OOB was a bit of a hack, it's like imagining an RAF of 1939 with equal numbers of Bristol Bulldogs and Gloster Gauntlet/Gladiators and Hurricane/Spits in all their front line squadrons, well I guess that's not so far from the truth considering they had the Defiant taking up squadron places.

Thus if we're going to speak in terms of historical realities, in Germany 1939 you had surplus 109B/C (serving alongside each other in use) and the 109E entering on the scene, with a handful of 109D that had low serviceability rates and poor reliability (transferred to either zerstörer sqns in lieu or requisitioned by rudimentary night fighter development sqns). Emils listed in active service during 1939 were all E-1 although certainly E-3 were being produced on the line. They had no self sealing tanks and no armour, though neither did anyone else, nobody was using those features back then. A fighter-bomber version was being made and some armour features from this became standard equipment to produce the E-3 that was entering active service on strength in 1940.

Meanwhile speaking again in terms of what was in the field the Spit was the basic MkI with no self sealing tanks and no armour, though its early update included an armoured windscreen and firewall. They were getting three speed variable pitch props ahead of the Hurricane, which was still using the two-blade Watts in 1940. Neither were using the constant speed prop yet. And as mentioned the Defiant was actually thought a good complementary fighter.

In 1939 the P-36C was a really good fighter with more modern features than others and roughly equivalent performance with other leaders (less straightline speed, better range, pilot features and dive speed, pretty equivalent everywhere else).

The Me-110 still had the Jumo engines except for the first handful of C's just entering service in December. Again there just weren't many of any of them, early ones were developmental types.

The D-520 was good too, but underpowered. Soviets and Japanese had nothing good. Central/western Europe had like Avias and Fiats, a couple of years obsolete but still combat worthy. Macchi had a great design but it was still a prototype and had no decent engine to use until 1941.

Given what was actually in the field and readily available during 1939 I'd say the best of the bunch are a 109E-1 with the aeromechanical screw, early Spit MkI with the Rotol three-speed or a P-36C with the electric constant, any of those are good for it and you could get your hands on one without being a development sqn or related to an aristocrat. Not sure the Curtiss was using reflector sights though yet, I think the Brits and Germans had the goods on that, and a tube or iron sight cuts situational awareness.

All things considered I'd go the 109 because I'm small framed anyway and wouldn't feel cramped, and the aeromechanical screw is about forty years ahead of its time. Seriously it was considered a significant advance in civilian aero manufacture in the late seventies and still regarded a nifty piece of "modern" technology. Cuts pilot workload in transitional manoeuvres by about half, greatly increases situational awareness, not that I'm a professional pilot (been a while since I flew) but just speculating.

Emil was a damn good fighter in 39-40.

 

[Vincenzo]

The E-3 was the most up to date subtype in 1939. According to most sources, "The Bf 109E-3 had a provision for a 20-mm MG FF cannon firing through the prop spinner, however the cannon had proved unreliable, due to overheating, and was seldom used operationally". ( Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Germany

All but the first 77 of the Spit IA were fitted with armoured windscreens and armoured firewalls. This means that the Spit went to war with at least some armour protection. Later additional back armour was also fitted, which I understand began just before the BoF . AFAIK, no armour was fitted to the 109 until the introduction of the E-4 subtype, which began to arrive midway through the BoB. To be fair armour was retrofitted to both the E-1 and E-3 subtypes.

maybe had the provision but no emil has the cannon, but the E-3 had 2 20 in the wings not need a 3rd 20 mm. afaik Spitfire from 78th change the propeller idk of windscreen i was talking of armour and afaik in spitfire this add in '40, and afaik E-3 were already with armour

 

[Vincenzo]

The 109D had a very short operational life due to unreliability of the DB600 engine,

.

the 109D had the jumo engine like the B/C, i know that some english book write so but they are in wrong

 

[Condora]

Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit

I see your point.
I know it is impossible to completely forget what I know of later developments on those 39 planes, but I prefer to try and ignore that advantage I have. Take the Whirlwind, for instance (it's a later model, I know): I know the Peregrine engine was a dead-end, so I would not pick it. If I was deciding "then", maybe I would.

As I try a bit to "think the way they did then", I would not consider adaptability - or any other factors - that were not deemed important at the time. Just a personal preference on how to approach the subject...

 

[marshall]

The original brief for this thread was to consider all aspect of the fighters, not just their performance. Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit

Yes, that's what I stated, that performance is not everything. Good example here can be cost of an airplane, as one fighter can be twice more expensive than the other but only slightly better and in such a situation probably the cost would be the deciding factor on which airplane is best.

About the design adaptability, I think it's an advantage but does anybody in 1939 knew that Spitfire has such a future ahead of her?

 

[parsifal]

About the design adaptability, I think it's an advantage but does anybody in 1939 knew that Spitfire has such a future ahead of her?

Probably not, but the same can be said about the 109. Both aircraft enjoyed exceptionally distinguished service careers. It would be wrong for me to try and argue that the 109 was not a total success, or that it was not a major influence on the war. But I just happen to believe that the Spitfire started as the better fighter, fell a little behind with the SpitV, but from the IX onward began to pull away from the equivalent marks of the 109. Ther will be many that disagree with that summary, which I respect.

 

[vanir]

the 109D had the jumo engine like the B/C, i know that some english book write so but they are in wrong

The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).

The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.

Both carburettor and injected Jumos were used in the B and the C, carb version about 640hp and injected about 700hp. As mentioned however usable combat performance is definitely below 5000 metres.

The 109D was noted by pilots for its definitive performance advantages over the earlier Jumo engine variants but nevertheless its serviceability rate was so low they actually preferred the B and C versions (ref.Alfred Price, quoting pilot anecdotes in "Messerschmitt 109, Great Aircraft of WWII"). It didn't matter however as fewer than 200 were ever built in its six months of limited production.
In September 1938 of all combined 109 versions only 510 were serviceable with the Luftwaffe, mostly the 109B with both Jumo-210D and retrofitted Ga engines. This had three MG-17, whilst a smaller number of 109C with either four MG-17 or two MG-17 and two MG FF were also in service and a bare handful of 109D most commonly with the two Oerlikons.

Re: Oerlikon motorkanone. All reports thus far appear to be of only prototype testing for this weapon, 109V4 which was a B series first tried with a heavy machine gun firing through the hub, then the MG FF with unsatisfactory results due to gun overheating and frequent jams.

The 109E-1 was initially fitted with four MG-17 whilst during production a switch to two MG FF is sometimes claimed. The E-2 was intended to mount a MG FF motorkanone but this version never appeared, and the E-3 with two MG FF and the armour features of the E-1/B was thus the next Emil produced. Some publications claim the E-3 sometimes mounted a MG FF motorkanone and two or four MG-17 but I've not seen any genuine evidence for this.

One point is valid however, that during Emil production particularly from E-3 production individual aces such as Galland and Mölders received custom fitted 109 a/c from Messerschmitt and it is a distinct possibility that any individual Emil, particularly from late 1940 could have almost any equipment fit at all, if the mount of a notable ace.
Galland's E-3 was updated to E-4 standards (improved armour and MG FF/m guns). Another E-4 he received later was fitted with a 601N motor that featured GM-1 boost. This same a/c was then updated to E-7 standards in early '41. The total armament fit and specific engine of his E-3 is not known, but it is known he "preferred the 3x MG FF cannon layout" for whatever that's worth. When he received his Me-109F-1 it was fitted with an MG FF/m motorkanone and two more in the wings, that is definite. His F-2 had a MG-151 motorkanone and two MG FF/m in the wings. This is just one example.

My Grandmother apparently knew a lot about him, she said he was known for having the fastest Messerschmitt in the Luftwaffe during 1940, and that it was a unique aircraft.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vanir
I think that Vincenzo is right
what I have read vast majority of 109Ds had Jumo engine, only some had DB600 for test and evaluation but the engine was considered too unreliable and with much improved 601 in pipeline it was dropped as a standard engine for single engined a/c.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).

The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.

Both carburettor and injected Jumos were used in the B and the C, carb version about 640hp and injected about 700hp. As mentioned however usable combat performance is definitely below 5000 metres.

The 109D was noted by pilots for its definitive performance advantages over the earlier Jumo engine variants but nevertheless its serviceability rate was so low they actually preferred the B and C versions (ref.Alfred Price, quoting pilot anecdotes in "Messerschmitt 109, Great Aircraft of WWII"). It didn't matter however as fewer than 200 were ever built in its six months of limited production.
In September 1938 of all combined 109 versions only 510 were serviceable with the Luftwaffe, mostly the 109B with both Jumo-210D and retrofitted Ga engines. This had three MG-17, whilst a smaller number of 109C with either four MG-17 or two MG-17 and two MG FF were also in service and a bare handful of 109D most commonly with the two Oerlikons.

Re: Oerlikon motorkanone. All reports thus far appear to be of only prototype testing for this weapon, 109V4 which was a B series first tried with a heavy machine gun firing through the hub, then the MG FF with unsatisfactory results due to gun overheating and frequent jams.

The 109E-1 was initially fitted with four MG-17 whilst during production a switch to two MG FF is sometimes claimed. The E-2 was intended to mount a MG FF motorkanone but this version never appeared, and the E-3 with two MG FF and the armour features of the E-1/B was thus the next Emil produced. Some publications claim the E-3 sometimes mounted a MG FF motorkanone and two or four MG-17 but I've not seen any genuine evidence for this.

One point is valid however, that during Emil production particularly from E-3 production individual aces such as Galland and Mölders received custom fitted 109 a/c from Messerschmitt and it is a distinct possibility that any individual Emil, particularly from late 1940 could have almost any equipment fit at all, if the mount of a notable ace.
Galland's E-3 was updated to E-4 standards (improved armour and MG FF/m guns). Another E-4 he received later was fitted with a 601N motor that featured GM-1 boost. This same a/c was then updated to E-7 standards in early '41. The total armament fit and specific engine of his E-3 is not known, but it is known he "preferred the 3x MG FF cannon layout" for whatever that's worth. When he received his Me-109F-1 it was fitted with an MG FF/m motorkanone and two more in the wings, that is definite. His F-2 had a MG-151 motorkanone and two MG FF/m in the wings. This is just one example.

My Grandmother apparently knew a lot about him, she said he was known for having the fastest Messerschmitt in the Luftwaffe during 1940, and that it was a unique aircraft.

i'm sorry for your photos but probably they were experimental prototypes planes. Afaik no MG FF in wings before on Emil-3, but experimental .

 

[paradoxguy]

The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).

The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.

Both carburettor and injected Jumos were used in the B and the C, carb version about 640hp and injected about 700hp. As mentioned however usable combat performance is definitely below 5000 metres.

The 109D was noted by pilots for its definitive performance advantages over the earlier Jumo engine variants but nevertheless its serviceability rate was so low they actually preferred the B and C versions (ref.Alfred Price, quoting pilot anecdotes in "Messerschmitt 109, Great Aircraft of WWII"). It didn't matter however as fewer than 200 were ever built in its six months of limited production.
In September 1938 of all combined 109 versions only 510 were serviceable with the Luftwaffe, mostly the 109B with both Jumo-210D and retrofitted Ga engines. This had three MG-17, whilst a smaller number of 109C with either four MG-17 or two MG-17 and two MG FF were also in service and a bare handful of 109D most commonly with the two Oerlikons.

Re: Oerlikon motorkanone. All reports thus far appear to be of only prototype testing for this weapon, 109V4 which was a B series first tried with a heavy machine gun firing through the hub, then the MG FF with unsatisfactory results due to gun overheating and frequent jams.

The 109E-1 was initially fitted with four MG-17 whilst during production a switch to two MG FF is sometimes claimed. The E-2 was intended to mount a MG FF motorkanone but this version never appeared, and the E-3 with two MG FF and the armour features of the E-1/B was thus the next Emil produced. Some publications claim the E-3 sometimes mounted a MG FF motorkanone and two or four MG-17 but I've not seen any genuine evidence for this.

One point is valid however, that during Emil production particularly from E-3 production individual aces such as Galland and Mölders received custom fitted 109 a/c from Messerschmitt and it is a distinct possibility that any individual Emil, particularly from late 1940 could have almost any equipment fit at all, if the mount of a notable ace.
Galland's E-3 was updated to E-4 standards (improved armour and MG FF/m guns). Another E-4 he received later was fitted with a 601N motor that featured GM-1 boost. This same a/c was then updated to E-7 standards in early '41. The total armament fit and specific engine of his E-3 is not known, but it is known he "preferred the 3x MG FF cannon layout" for whatever that's worth. When he received his Me-109F-1 it was fitted with an MG FF/m motorkanone and two more in the wings, that is definite. His F-2 had a MG-151 motorkanone and two MG FF/m in the wings. This is just one example.

My Grandmother apparently knew a lot about him, she said he was known for having the fastest Messerschmitt in the Luftwaffe during 1940, and that it was a unique aircraft.

Your two synopsis (previous page) on fighters circa 1939-1940 were very interesting and informative. I just wanted to add that I agree with you that the Bf 109E-3 was never fitted operationally with a motorkanone, despite numerous publications stating such. I understand that the process of developing a successful motorkanone for the Bf 109 was long and arduous and almost ended with no success.

I was also intrigued by your comments about Adolf Galland and his custom Bf 109's--and that your grandmother knew much about him. Can I ask, was/is she German? Did she know Galland personally? On a more relevant topic , as I am sure you know, Galland also had another custom Bf 109F-2 with 13mm cowl-mounted machine guns replacing the standard 7.9mm guns. Do you know if he had a preference between this machine and the Bf 109F-2 with the wing-mounted MG FF/m cannon? I imagine that the 13mm gun-equipped Bf 109F-2 was more maneuverable than the MG FF/m machine.

 

[Elvis]

Question is simple. What was the best fighter aircraft in service all over the world before the 1 September 1939?

This question bothers me for some time and I would like to know what other more knowledgeable people than I think about it.

The term 'best' have for me quite wide meaning, so it don't have to always mean performance.

Was it the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Or was it something else? Something American, or maybe British, or French, or Italian, or Japanese, or Russian?

So what is your opinion?

As much as I'd like to say P-38, or F4F-3 or even F2A-1, all of which were in service by the beginning the war (I think that's right for the P-38?), I'd say the answer would most likely be either the Me-109 or the Spitfire.


Elvis

 

[Juha]

IMHO Bf 109E-3.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

As much as I'd like to say P-38, or F4F-3 or even F2A-1, all of which were in service by the beginning the war (I think that's right for the P-38?), I'd say the answer would most likely be either the Me-109 or the Spitfire.


Elvis

for true none of that was in service

 

[parsifal]

Its true that not many Me 109s were fitted with a moteur cannon firing through the hub. Thats because the few that were (mostly prior to the outbreak of the war), were all found to be failures. The gun arrangement simply did not work. The two chief designs for the pre-war 20mm gun the Hispano and Oerlikon, had both spent a lot of time and effort trying to perfect a the firing position through the propellor hub, to no avail, and this mistake was repeated by Rheinmetall when they bought back the rights to the old Becker design that formed the basis of their 20mm redevelopment program in the 30's

But what is irrefutable was that as designed, the Me109 E-3 was intended to carry an engine mounted 20mm MGFF cannon. Moreover the failure of the technology was a major blow to the effectiveness of the type. The centreline armament was intended to carry 200 rounds of ammunition, whilst the drum mounted wing guns were only designed to carry 60 rounds per gun. Straight away the total ammunition loadout was less than half in the operational units, as compared to the design specs. This severely limited the ability of the type to maintain sustained fire. Instead of having around 25 secs of continuous fire capability, the 109 as built only had about 8-10 seconds of continous fire time. Compare that to the Spit which was loaded with 300-350 RPG, giving a continuous burst capability of around 18-20 seconds. Moreover the higher rate of fire of the lighter British MGs were better suited to untrained pilots spraying bullets in all directions. The slower rate of fire and shorter burst time of the german armament made it necessary for the germans to be better marksmen, and were somewhat less effective in engaging high speed fighter targets.....

"The Spitfire had eight Browning machine-guns spread out along the wing. These each had 300-350 rounds of normal bullets, tracer, incendiary or armour-piercing (the last type only effective against the thinnest of armour). The guns were configured so that the bullets converged on a single point some distance in front of the aircraft. At first this distance was over 400 yards, however best results were obtained if the guns were configured at 250 or 200 yards instead. (Clearly the German MG FF had a range advantage over the Spits). The use of eight machine-guns meant that even the novice fighter-pilots thrown into the battle by the British had a chance of hitting something if they could get into firing position. On the other hand the 109`s armament favoured the marksman. The 109 had two machine guns of similar performance to the British Brownings, but mounted in the nose and synchronised to fire through the propeller. These had magazines of 1,000 rounds each, which meant the German could keep his finger on the trigger over three times longer than his British counterpart, but after that time he would have still expended 400 less rounds than the Spitfire pilot. The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, relatively poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun. Against British bombers they were devastating, but the manoeuvrable and swift Spitfires and Hurricanes were a difficult target.

The incendiary bullets used by the British in the Battle of Britain gave the RAF a great advantage. They could cause the fuel-tank of a target aircraft to explode and the flash of light they gave off showed the British pilot his bullets were striking home. The incendiary bullet had been developed in secret at Woolwich Arsenal and was only first used in the Battle of Britain. Named "de Wilde" ammunition by the British this was a ruse to make the Germans think it was based on the work of a Mr de Wilde in Switzerland. In fact it had been found that "proper" de Wilde bullets could only be made by hand, whereas the British design could be mass-produced. The British "de Wilde" bullets were the invention of C. Aubrey Dixon, a Captain in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment (he retired with the rank of Brigadier), one of the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain."

Germany had nothing comparable at this time. Even though the Dewilde ammunition was available until the BoB, it was under development from pre-war, so should be taken into account in this discussion

 

[vanir]

i'm sorry for your photos but probably they were experimental prototypes planes.

Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this. My photos are of 109D in service and on the runway, several of them. In November 1938 Jagdgruppe 331 for example was re-equipped with the BF-109D and due to low serviceability of the DB-600 began to re-equip again the following May when it was redesignated JG77, only five months later with the E-1 and its DB-601.

Afaik no MG FF in wings before on Emil-3, but experimental .

Again I urge you to do some research, you're obviously interested in the subject and it is an interesting read.

The standard armament of the 109B was 3x MG-17 and the 109C was 4x MG-17 however the MG FF was extensively tested during 1937-8 as an armament option both as a motorkanone (V4 prototype for the 109B in continued testing, and V12 prototype for the 109D) and in the wings (V9 a modified 109B taken off the line as one of the prototypes for the 109C).
It is widely recorded that the fitment of MG FF in the wings was undertaken for service evaluation/testing in a number of 109C a/c sent to Spain. Pilot feedback of the weapon is recorded in use in the field in Spain.

The 109D in service had either 4x MG-17 or 2x MG and 2x MG FF (some refer to the this version as the D-3). Only 36 109D were sent to Spain before the E-1 appeared, and of these some definitely had MG FF fitted to the wings as recorded by pilot service evaluation of the weapon fitment in the field. It is claimed some 109D also had an MG FF motorkanone instead. Pilots in general applauded fitment of the MG FF as four small calibre machine guns was becoming inadequate, but cited inaccuracy when fitted to the wings (their structure was never originally intended for gun fitment) and frequent jams due to overheating when mounted as a motorkanone. There is also at least one claim 3x MG FF were fitted to individual a/c but that such a heavy armament reduced performance too dramatically for service use in the fighter role.
Generally it is recorded by Messerschmitt AG that some pilots preferred MG FF fitted to the wngs, whilst others preferred the idea of the motorkanone fitment. This is famously outlined as the respective preferences of Adolf Galland and Werner Mölders. Galland famously said the more (heavy) guns the better, especially for new recruits (but in fact Galland's personal record is a strong background as a schlachtflieger and he is really a ground attack specialist, Mölders was the flyboy and he preferred the precision of centreline armament).

Again, of service examples it is clear that at some point on the production line the MG-17 in the wings of the E-1 was switched to MG FF. During the war the E-3 was also in production but the real distinction of this model was the armour package and not the armament, which by then (ie. during E-1 production) the MG FF in the wings had become standardised.

The armament package, including a cockpit glass revision was the feature of the E-4 as well as a new thin walled casting technique for MG FF ammunition, with a minor revision of the gun to take advantage of a lower projectile weight (improved ROF from ca.450rpm-cyclic to 540rpm-cyclic), the new gun/ammo combo termed MG FF/m (for minengeschoß or mine shell).

So there are a few differences, visual, armament and armour for the E-4. But the difference between the E-1 and E-3 is only armour, although early production E-1 initially had 4x MG-17 standard fit and all E-1/B have 4x MG-17 (but the armour of the E-3 and provision for bombs). The E-3 was also the first 109 to feature self sealing tanks standard (not sure about the E-1/B on that), and the first a/c in mass production in the world to do so though it was quickly followed by the British armour updates on the Spit and Hurri.
There is also some additional confusion as all Emils were frequently retrofitted with later equipment and kept in service, though all examples I've seen of this were E-3 and later models (updated to E-4 or E-7 standard or various engine fitments).

I was also intrigued by your comments about Adolf Galland and his custom Bf 109's--and that your grandmother knew much about him. Can I ask, was/is she German? Did she know Galland personally?

She seemed to yes, one of her friends was a Gustav pilot who flew the 109K over Berlin. German yes, family left in the mid-fifties. We weren't allowed to talk much about it as kids because she could go off on violent rants particularly where the subject of Hitler or the SS was brought up, which I tended to do. There were times though, like when she bought me a 109 scale model kit for Christmas when I was alone with her and her friends and she would volunteer an amazing amount of technical information and personal details, mostly about Galland who she said all the women thought was extremely charismatic. Her friend Günther knew a fair bit about Marsielle but arrived in Africa too late to meet him. I don't think she was a personal friend or anything, he was still around then and she wasn't in contact or anything, perhaps met him across the room once? I was always amazed she could list off armament and engine variations in Emils and was familiar with all the major 109 variants, a very weird thing to see an old lady do. I guess I'd call her a fan of Galland.

 

[Njaco]

Don't know if this helps with the conversation but I made a thread awhile ago on Galland's Bf 109s...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/gallands-bf-109s-17889.html

 

[vanir]

But what is irrefutable was that as designed, the Me109 E-3 was intended to carry an engine mounted 20mm MGFF cannon. Moreover the failure of the technology was a major blow to the effectiveness of the type. The centreline armament was intended to carry 200 rounds of ammunition, whilst the drum mounted wing guns were only designed to carry 60 rounds per gun.

I think you'll find the reference sources your basing this off was talking about early MG151 development, which was intended to be in service for the Emil, became protracted and didn't wind up in production until early '41.
Also the MG FF as a motorkanone fitment was always intended to use either a 60 or a 90 round drum, a linked magazine was never speculated for it. It didn't matter, the MG FF tended to overheat in a motorkanone fitment and this caused the feed to jam, and development was already concentrated on the MG151 which was designed from the start to solve the problems of the MG FF particularly in a motorkanone fitment. Messerschmitt himself had always intended centreline armament for the 109 and it was only by RLM demand that guns were fitted to the wings, which based on what weapons were currently in production was the only way to immediately increase armament potency.

The first motorkanone fitment was actually a heavy machine gun, used in an early ground attack outlay for the 109V4 which also first tested the MG FF as one. I've no idea of the type of machine gun used, but assume it was a 12.7mm Browning derivative probably made in Belgium or Italy. The fitment was successful but it was decided something heavier was needed. Italy was experimenting with switching incendiary ammunition for a small HE charge in the 12.7mm and eventually the MG151 with its HE 15mm shell and flat trajectory, high penetration properties was supposed to be as effective as an MG FF with the benefits of a 12.7mm maching gun fitment. This was all going on in 1938.

The Emil was to be the first 109 in true mass production (all earlier versions may be considered developmental models in limited production only), the full breadth of German fighter development up to this time was to be incorporated into that model as the tactical short range fighter force of the Luftwaffe. The main production Daimler engine series (largely borne by the efforts of Ernst Udet and his race experience in developmental prototypes, the heavily modified DB-600 and 601 used in the Alpine races of 1937, pumping out to around 1650hp at a couple of hundred metres), and the refined 109 airframe that Messerschmitt envisoned with centreline armament, featuring the new MG151 motorkanone for attack and interception and two MG-17 for defence.
Reality doesn't quite work that way however, the Daimler motor needed much more development (the 601A is more like a 1000hp motor in service use) and the MG151 wasn't ready for production.

 

[parsifal]

I think you'll find the reference sources your basing this off was talking about early MG151 development, which was intended to be in service for the Emil, became protracted and didn't wind up in production until early '41.
Also the MG FF as a motorkanone fitment was always intended to use either a 60 or a 90 round drum, a linked magazine was never speculated for it.

Source1: Messeschmitt Bf 109 in action (Part 1) John Beamn Jerry Campbell, Squadron Signals Publications, 1980, Page 29 (E-3 specs). On armament it says:

"two 20mm MGFF with 60 rpg in wings and two 7.92 Rheinmetall Borsig MG 17 with 1000 rpg each in fuselage. (one engine mounted MG FF/M with 200 rpg carried by some aircraft)"

The text then says exactly as you describe....the MGFF/M in the centreline position was not a success, because of overheating problems resulting in catastrophic jams.

However this source is at odds with what you say in that it makes no mention of the MG 151, and refers to 200rpg for the centreline gun

Other sources consulted that confirm this basic position....

Fighters 1939-45, Bill Gunstan and John Batchelor1978

German Fighters, Chris Chant 1999

Warplanes Of WWII, Robert Jackson 2002


Just one of at least half a dozen websites that I know of that confirm that provision was made for the fitting of an MGFF/M, and no mention of the MG 151

Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Germany

The majority of these sources dont refer to the MG FF/M, but simply to the MG FF as the centreline fitment. They all say that this fitout was unsuccessful. Some of the sources say that the rpgs were 200 for that centreline cannon, none say 90 or 60, and some make no mention of the issue at all. So the sources are a bit confusing

Some of these sources are better than others, but it would be great if you could provide source material to back up your claims (ie, that the rpgs did not exceed 90, even for experimental fits, and that the references to E-3 cenreline cannon are references to MG151s) , since your statements are completely at odds with these other sources.

I concede that the references to MGFF/M seem out of place, since it was my understanding this gun was not fitted until the arrival of the E-4....however in this I may be mistaken, since these references are all to the use of the new mine shells. Perhaps the MG FF/M was ready before that but could not fire the mine shell, since this ammunition was unready?????

Wiki (please forgive me) says this about the issue

The MG FF was adapted to fire a high explosive mine shell (Minengeschoss) that featured a projectile with thinner walls that allowed increased explosive charge. This projectile was lighter and generated less recoil than earlier projectiles requiring a modification of the recoil mechanism. With this modification it could fire the new mine shell, but accidentally using the heavier MG FF ammo could damage the gun. The now-called MG FF/M was introduced with the Bf 109 E-4 and Bf 110 C-4 in Summer 1940.

The MG FF and FF/M saw widespread use in fighters such as the Bf 109 E-3 to F-1, Bf 110 C to F, and Fw 190 A-1 to A-5. The Fw 190 was typically fitted with an inboard pair of MG 151 and an outboard pair of MG FF, although the MG FF were sometimes removed in the field in order to save weight. The cannon was also fitted to bombers such as the Do 217, Ju 88, He 111, Do 17, as well as many other aircraft. Although the MG FF was often replaced with the 20 mm MG 151/20 from 1941 onwards, it saw a come-back in 1943 as the primary Schräge Musik gun in the Bf 110 night fighters, as it perfectly fitted into the rear cockpit.

The MG FF fired a 134 g projectile with a muzzle velocity of some 600 m/s and a rate of fire of about 520 rounds per minute. The MG FF/M fired a 90 g HE/M (high explosive mine shell) projectile with a muzzle velocity of c. 700 m/s and a rate of fire of c. 540 rounds per minute. AP, HE and incendiary projectiles were also available (115 to 117 g projectiles, 585 m/s, c. 520 rpm) because the mine-shot was not capable of holding incendiary or tracer parts.