cristian.hidalgo
Banned
so do eny one know of any upgrades of the german bf-109 becuse my granpas dad siad it was more wepons payload
bf-109 and its upgrades
- Thread starter cristian.hidalgo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Cristian,
>so do eny one know of any upgrades of the german bf-109 becuse my granpas dad siad it was more wepons payload
Actually, it was almost all about more engine power (A..D -> E -> F -> G -> K versions), with one major improvement in aerodynamics (E -> F) and another improvement in aerodynamics coupled with a standardization of production (G -> K).
Weapons and payload were MGs (A..D), two low-velocity cannon (E), one high-velocity cannon (F->G), then one heavy low-velocity cannon (G->K). Underwing cannon could be added as a kit (F->K, though only used on G).
Bomb load was 250 kg or 4 x 50 kg (E->G), with 500 kg cleared for the K due to its larger tailwheel. (Even the E could carry a 500 kg bomb too, but the fins almost scraped on the ground, and so it was not cleared for operations.)
That's Messerschmitt in a nutshell for you
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>so do eny one know of any upgrades of the german bf-109 becuse my granpas dad siad it was more wepons payload
Actually, it was almost all about more engine power (A..D -> E -> F -> G -> K versions), with one major improvement in aerodynamics (E -> F) and another improvement in aerodynamics coupled with a standardization of production (G -> K).
Weapons and payload were MGs (A..D), two low-velocity cannon (E), one high-velocity cannon (F->G), then one heavy low-velocity cannon (G->K). Underwing cannon could be added as a kit (F->K, though only used on G).
Bomb load was 250 kg or 4 x 50 kg (E->G), with 500 kg cleared for the K due to its larger tailwheel. (Even the E could carry a 500 kg bomb too, but the fins almost scraped on the ground, and so it was not cleared for operations.)
That's Messerschmitt in a nutshell for you
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The 2x nose MG's were also upgraded from 7.92 mm MG 17 to 13 mm MG 131 in the Me 109G series (though up to the G-2 the 7.92 mm's were carried iirc)
Provisions for drop tanks also extended range in later models. (starting in late 109E Jabos -fighter bomber- iirc) Trials had been carried out with drop tanks in the 1930's, but no producion a/c had it standard until 1941 iirc. Too late for the BoB.
Provisions for drop tanks also extended range in later models. (starting in late 109E Jabos -fighter bomber- iirc) Trials had been carried out with drop tanks in the 1930's, but no producion a/c had it standard until 1941 iirc. Too late for the BoB.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
The droptank carrying E-7 entered service end of August, 1940. I guess there were too few of them initially, so the first references/photos of droptanks on Emils are from October/November 1940. Could have been earlier, but there`s no evidence of it (yet), Stukas has been using those droptanks since the Ju 87R, ie. in service since Norway the latest.
HoHun, the gondolas were definietely used on the F-4 (/R1 model) and Caldwell suggest also on JG 26`s 109Ks. I`ve seen G-10 with it, too. It was definietely possible, and even used sometimes, but indeed rarely, given the overall situation. It was a ready-to-go kit for all but a few specialized versions of the G and K, but of the F series only the F-4/R1 model could mount it.
HoHun, the gondolas were definietely used on the F-4 (/R1 model) and Caldwell suggest also on JG 26`s 109Ks. I`ve seen G-10 with it, too. It was definietely possible, and even used sometimes, but indeed rarely, given the overall situation. It was a ready-to-go kit for all but a few specialized versions of the G and K, but of the F series only the F-4/R1 model could mount it.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Christian, as you can see, the Bf 109 went through alot. Efforts to put newer and more effective weapons on the plane, it was realized that more powerful engines would be needed which made new sub-types and weapons and engines and weapons....
Just about every warbird went through that type of evolution.
Just about every warbird went through that type of evolution.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I wonder why thy didn't put (internal) wing guns back on it, like with the 109E. (earlier models had 7.92 mm wing guns too iirc, at least the D did)
The K-14 was supposed to mount internal wing mounted MG 151/20's iirc.
The K-14 was supposed to mount internal wing mounted MG 151/20's iirc.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I guess because using the gondolas was a much simplier and flexible option, while weight and drag was apprx. the same as with wing guns.
Yes the K-6 and K-14 had wing mounted MK 108s, an alternate configuration with MG 151/20s was also considered. These aircraft were heavily armored variants against bombers, though.
Yes the K-6 and K-14 had wing mounted MK 108s, an alternate configuration with MG 151/20s was also considered. These aircraft were heavily armored variants against bombers, though.
Velius
Airman 1st Class
Does anyone know if any attempts were made to make the 109 safer to land thru the landing gear? The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.
Sgt. Pappy
Airman 1st Class
- 197
- Jun 7, 2006
The Bf109H had a wider landing gear track but the plane was never put into production.
The largest mods in 109 gear assembly didn't widen the track by any significant amount. The most important thing for the 109 next to performance was still ease of maintainability and this was best gained through gear attached to the fuselage so the wings could be removed for repair.
The largest mods in 109 gear assembly didn't widen the track by any significant amount. The most important thing for the 109 next to performance was still ease of maintainability and this was best gained through gear attached to the fuselage so the wings could be removed for repair.
Hi Velius,
>The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.
I'd like to know where that figure originates from. I've read it often, but never with an original source listed. I even found it in Bungay's fairly new and well-researched "The Most Dangerous Enemy" - without any source, once more.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.
I'd like to know where that figure originates from. I've read it often, but never with an original source listed. I even found it in Bungay's fairly new and well-researched "The Most Dangerous Enemy" - without any source, once more.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Olivier posted some actual figures a while ago about TO/L incidents from his extensive archieves containing something like 26 000 records of the service history of individual Bf 109s.
IIRC it said that something like 1,5% of the 109s were involved in some kind of incident (ie. in many cases these are simply damages to the aircraft, nobody was badly hurt, the a/c was then repaired and not written down, or lost), but I dont have it right here, I will post it later if I dont forget.
I dont think the 109 was particularly bad in this regard, though one would need to see comparable figures for other aircraft. I did some analysis on Mossie fates, and I found that surprisingly large number had ground looping incidents as well (which was a surprise to me, as I have believed its more troublesome with SE fighters..). So I dont think its anything special, people usually underestime the true extent of non enemy related accidents vs. enemy related combat losses during the war..
IIRC it said that something like 1,5% of the 109s were involved in some kind of incident (ie. in many cases these are simply damages to the aircraft, nobody was badly hurt, the a/c was then repaired and not written down, or lost), but I dont have it right here, I will post it later if I dont forget.
I dont think the 109 was particularly bad in this regard, though one would need to see comparable figures for other aircraft. I did some analysis on Mossie fates, and I found that surprisingly large number had ground looping incidents as well (which was a surprise to me, as I have believed its more troublesome with SE fighters..). So I dont think its anything special, people usually underestime the true extent of non enemy related accidents vs. enemy related combat losses during the war..
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Guys surprisingly the undercart the on the 109 was 6" wider then the Spit on both aircraft the wheels were toed out 1/2" . I believe more aircraft were written off by training accidents then by combat I have no statisical evidence but just putting two and two together from reading
Velius
Airman 1st Class
Hi HoHun
This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant. In this book there is a two page illustrated description of a Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 (pages 178 and 179). A section labeled "Narrow Undercarriage" states-
"A narrow undercarriage coupled with a tendency to swing to port, led to some 5 percent of all Bf 109s being destroyed on takeoff and landing".
Velius 8)
claidemore
Senior Airman
Israeli airforce lost nearly all of their 109s to accidents of one sort or another. Some to low level flying accidents, some to takeoff and landing.
I wonder if that 5% figure comes from the Czech airforce use after WWII?
I wonder if that 5% figure comes from the Czech airforce use after WWII?
Hi Velius,
>This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant.
Thanks for the information! Sounds like Grant doesn't mention the primary source either? Then at least we've verified his book as a "dead end" :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant.
Thanks for the information!
Sounds like Grant doesn't mention the primary source either? Then at least we've verified his book as a "dead end" :-/Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Velius
Airman 1st Class
Hi Velius,
>This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant.
Thanks for the information!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yeah- unfortunatley he doesn't. The book as a symbol of a sun in the corner that says "Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum"- I kinda thought that the info inside it would be true (either that or to prove that I am easily impressed by symbols
)
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I found butch`s post.
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...
An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.
When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.
This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...
An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.
When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.
This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.
Please remember the Israely air force did not use a single 109 but modified czech variants named Avia S-199. These aircraft used a Jumo 211 engine and a different prop, both were still in storage from He 111 production. The 211 engine made ground behaviour even worse with engine and prop generating large amounts of torque. This was especially dangerous if power was given too fast with the aircraft still taxying very slow and the tail down, the control surfaces had very little effect in this situation and this was one of the main reasons for ground loops.
I don't know whether the isreaelis got some Avia S-99, too. These were more or less Bf 109 G-14 (or was it G-10?) of postwar czech production.
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
Accidents happen all the time and landing is the hardest part of flying a plane...landing in one piece that is
