Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939

The MG FF was simply not ever developed or mounted to fire linked ammunition, the MG151 was. The German drum was 60rds although the Japanese made one for 90rds and I don't see any reason the Germans couldn't have placed a 90rd drum into production.
The ammunition box for the MG151 is 200 rounds of 15mm in a motorkanone fitment. When upsized to 20mm only 150 rounds could be carried due to the increased size of the shells.
The MG151 was in development by 1938 and intended to be fitted to the Me-109 (E).
The Oerlikon was Swedish, it was very old and the MG151 was simply the next step for development of an idigenous German heavy calibre aero gun.

I think it is safe to infer that if a chain linked box was developed for the MG FF which it never was, that it could carry a maximum of 150rds in a motorkanone fitment rather than 200rds, which was the ammunition store for the 15mm MG151 centreline box (mounted in the port wingroot). All 20mm motorkanone with linked ammunition fitted to the 109 had a 150rd ammo box in the port wing root. All 15mm motorkanone in the 109 had a 200rd box.


Also I frequently read completely inaccurate technical specifications listed in commercial publications and on websites, particularly about the Me109. This includes imaginary production variants with MGFF motorkanone, actual production variants with imaginary MGFF motorkanone, imaginary engine variations, imaginary variant deployments, and completely misunderstood and improperly described boosting systems. Often editors aren't very mechanically qualified and work with third party research.
Best references are primary source data or a combination of detailed research and personal qualification.

According to many researchers citing primary sources there is no evidence to support any motorkanone fitment of the MG FF in any production and service 109 ever, though it was tested on prototypes and development models. However there are enough anecdotes to suggest that some E-3 may have, which I say very loosely, may have been custom fitted with an MG FF motorkanone, there is simply no standing evidence for it.

Here's an odd thing however. The 109F-1 entered production late in 1940 which was before the MG151 and some sources claim it was fitted with an MGFF/m motorkanone in lieu plus 2x MG17. The entire run was grounded and recalled in January following some fatal structural failures. When the F-2 appeared several months later it had the MG151 with 200rds of 15mm.
If the F-1 had a MGFF/m, it had a 60rd box, of this there is no question.

paradoxguy said:

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.

Click to expand...

vanir said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting background on your grandmother. You echoed my sentiments that hearing a civilian mature woman recite a litany of Bf 109 specifications must have been very unusual, to say the least. During our relationship, I twice visited an aviation museum with my ex-girfriend in San Diego, California, USA, and pointed out the Bf 109G-10 hanging upside down with its Erla Haube, smoothed-over Beule, cowl-mounted machine guns and motorkanone, and black tulip pattern on its nose several times, yet at the peak of our relationship, all she recalled of the Bf 109 was the tulip pattern. (Aside: no written description was provided, but I presume the paint job was intended to evoke Hartmann's Bf 109.) Galland must have been an unbelieveable lady's man for your grandmother to remember and recite the specifications of his fighter aircraft!

Hi Vanir

This is all great stuff, and very credible, but you have not provided any verifiable sources other than to say that the commericial sources are no good, and that primary sources are really the only way to go. Okay, but thats still not a proper referenced source, leaving your readers unable to verify or look at the basis of your statements.

parsifal, many of these books and websites do what I call 'copy and paste' from each other and just perpetuate any inaccuracies.

The best example of this is the fitting of MG151s in the cowl of the 109K-4.

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."

That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.

Juha

I don't know if anybody mentioned this but the good 'ole Brewster Buffalo was already on the scene in 1939, in very limited numbers.



Like only 11 planes in the US navy.


Still, if you did get your hands on one, it was really not a bad fighter.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm

Hello Welch
IIRC only one Brewster F2A-1was accepted by the navy by 1st Sept 39, 11 by mid November 39.

So IMHO it just missed the deadline. But Finns thought that denavalized F2A-1s, the B-239s, were better than Hawk 75As (P-36s) or Hurricane Mk Is or Fiat G.50. And they used them all.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."

That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.

Juha

Click to expand...

I'm agree

Vanir i never eared a D-3 variant

Vincenzo said:

Elvis said:

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.

Click to expand...

for true none of that was in service

Click to expand...

NONE of those?...

Warbird Alley's Buffalo page said:

In June 1939 the first of 54 F2A-1 production planes was delivered, the first nine sent to equip VF-3 aboard USS Saratoga.

Click to expand...

Warbird Alley's Spitfire page said:

The Spitfire Mk I became operational at Duxford, Cambridgeshire, in July 1938

Click to expand...

Warbird Alley's Me-109 page said:

The first production model, the Bf 109B-1, was delivered in early 1937 to the JG132 'Richthofen' squadron, Germany's top fighter unit

Click to expand...

You are correct about induction dates of F4F -3 and P-38, though.
As far as I can tell, they did come on-line after 9/1/39.

Still, my vote remains split between the Spit and the Messerschmitt.


Elvis

obvious i talking only of US 3 fighters at start of your phrase. the first F2A remane alone until autumn 1939 and the first was not for the VF-3, in older topic there is a page with all delivery date for F2A-1

this it's link at (web) page http://www.warbirdforum.com/f2a1.htm

I believe the VF-3 was the first Navel Squadron fully equiped with the plane, or 9 out of the 11 that had been delivered up to that time.

F2A Buffalo in action by Squadron Signal Publications, page 7

Juha said:

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."

That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.

Juha

Click to expand...

Again you're talking about assumptions from an obvious typo. The typo is obviously, plainly the 109C is being discussed.
The Me-109C was supposed to receive the 210Ga injection motor but most wound up with the 210D of the 109B because the injection engines were in short supply. The text is referring to the C and not the D.
That was followed on by a retrofit of both 109B and 109C with the 210Ga where possible during 1938, so several 109B also had a 210Ga motor in 1938.

Theoretically the 109B was supposed to have the carburettor 210D and the 109C the injected 210Ga.

But in service use the Me109B and C both featured the 210D and 210Ga engine, whilst first series Bertas sent to Spain also had the earlier 210B (600hp) development series engine. In 1938-39 any Me109B or C could have either the 210D or 210Ga motor, and the only difference was the armament between the two types.

The Me109D was a change to the initial series (carburettor) Daimler motor. It had the radiator moved from under the cowling the wings because the Daimler motor was fitted. All Me-109D had the Daimler motor. Not one single Me109D had a Jumo motor. The only difference between an Me109C and an Me109D was the Daimler motor. If you put a Jumo in an Me109 airframe on the lines where the C and D were being produced, you'd have a C.

No Jumo engines were fitted to a production Me109 after the C.

Using primary source references will prevent this kind of confusion

Follow up post:

109B Note the radiator under the nose like a Ju87 and the air intake on the starboard side, signifying the Jumo engine.

109C again the radiator under the nose, you can see the machine gun ports in the wings denoting a Caesar. Can still see the air intake.

And here is the 109D, with the radiator moved to the wings. It looks like an Emil, except for the long air intake on the port side for the carburettor Daimler. Detail on the air intake is good and you can clearly see the absence of the radiator under the nose. Clearly a Daimler motor.

Vincenzo said:

obvious i talking only of US 3 fighters at start of your phrase.]

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't obvious.
If it was, we wouldn't be having this little side discussion right now.
You need to write what you mean and don't assume that others will get "the gist" of what you're trying to convey.
Often, this is where problems begin.


Elvis

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Again you're talking about assumptions from an obvious typo. The typo is obviously, plainly the 109C is being discussed."

Now Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's book is based on Messerschmitt AG's documents, are you suggesting that they made a mistake or that the mistake originated from Messerschmitt AG? Also Marco Fernández-Sommerau states in his Messerchmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual (2004) p. 34 that 109D was powered by Jumo 210 D. So what are your sources? What primary sources You have used? The plane you claimed to be a 109D might well be one of the protos, painted as a service machine. Do you remember He 113? I see the situation from what I have read that Germans made a same kind of trick with some their Bf 109 protos, painted them as service a/c and claimed they were new 109Ds. Green took the bait and after that the story is repeated in numerous publicications.

Now the new books claim that 109C and D were 4 guns planes, C with 210 G and D with 210 D.

Juha

Clay_Allison said:

Don't sell the Bf 110 short in that pahase of the game. It might have become obsolete later but with that armament and horsepower in 1939 you could boom and zoom with the best of them.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, most Messers shot down by the Dutch LVA were Bf110. This done by an, on paper, far inferior a/c like the Fokker D.XXI makes me suspect the Bf110 wasn't that good.

Marcel said:

Hmmm, most Messers shot down by the Dutch LVA were Bf110. This done by an, on paper, far inferior a/c like the Fokker D.XXI makes me suspect the Bf110 wasn't that good.

Click to expand...

I wrote about this in a different thread, but the problem with the BF110 wasn't that it wasn't a good airplane, its that it was applied to the wrong application.
It should've ALWAYS been an attack/light bomber aircraft, not a "bomber escort" (essentially putting it in the "fighter" role), as it was originally used.
So to say that the Bf110 wasn't a good plane because it couldn't dogfight with a Fokker D.XXI , is like saying the B-17 wasn't a good plane because it couldn't dogfight with a 109.
Its knid of a non-sensical statement.


Elvis

The tread was about fighters. I still think the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter (not talking about the later use as a nightfighter which has totally different demands). BTW, the G.1 was in the same class as the Bf110. It was found to be able to dogfight the D.XXI, the D.XXI having only a slight advantage being lighter. I'm not saying the G.1 was better than the Bf110 as an aircraft, but it was certainly a better fighter in the context of 1939.

Elvis said:

No, it wasn't obvious.
If it was, we wouldn't be having this little side discussion right now.
You need to write what you mean and don't assume that others will get "the gist" of what you're trying to convey.
Often, this is where problems begin.


Elvis

Click to expand...

in contest of this thread saw my previous topics imho was clear.

Marcel said:

The tread was about fighters. I still think the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter (not talking about the later use as a nightfighter which has totally different demands). BTW, the G.1 was in the same class as the Bf110. It was found to be able to dogfight the D.XXI, the D.XXI having only a slight advantage being lighter. I'm not saying the G.1 was better than the Bf110 as an aircraft, but it was certainly a better fighter in the context of 1939.

Click to expand...

I think with just tatics the 110 was a good fighter for '39, but surely it's not a dogfighters